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: 225
74
<< 222  223  224    226  227  228 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: greenreflections

Earth and Moon do not rotate, what would cause the vortex.


Earth and moon very much DO rotate. Although gravity has nothing to do with vortices.


What gravity has to do with?
edit on 24-12-2015 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: greenreflections

Earth and Moon do not rotate, what would cause the vortex.


Earth and moon very much DO rotate. Although gravity has nothing to do with vortices.


What gravity has to do with?


The hint was given by Einstein.



posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: vjr1113
can someone tell me how strong a structure has to be to withstand 38k tons falling at freefall speed for about 12 feet?


Sounds like someone is curious as to the events of 911, thats a good thing..



posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Phage, this is the question to you too. Where Einstein said about vortex in his GR?


thanks
edit on 24-12-2015 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections




Where Einstein said about vortex in his GR?

As far as I can tell, he said nothing about vortices.

What is up with your obsession with them? Gravity does not behave like a vortex. Vortices do no behave like gravity. There is no similarity.

edit on 12/24/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: greenreflections




Where Einstein said about vortex in his GR?

As far as I can tell, he said nothing about vortices.

What is up with your obsession with them? Gravity does not behave like a vortex. Vortices do no behave like gravity. There is no similarity.


yup. Sorry I did not read your answer correctly. Then what was your take on different terms of bent, distorted or wrapped? Did you give one?

What would include in your description of distorted space-time?


edit on 25-12-2015 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections

Then what was your take on different terms of bent, distorted or wrapped? Did you give one?
Yes.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 03:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: greenreflections

Earth and Moon do not rotate, what would cause the vortex.



Earth and moon very much DO rotate. Although gravity has nothing to do with vortices.


What gravity has to do with?


Curvature in the 4TH dimension in comparison to our frame if reference. Newton claimed gravity had to be a force there was an argument between Einstine and Newton views. Thus goes back to the elevator if your in an elevator einstine said you can't tell if your moving. In fact suppose the etlevator was moving up you jump and the floor would head towards you. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that and gravity. Well that is a huge clue into the reality of gravity. Einstine would say gravity doesn't exist it is simply frames moving. For example take our elevator we enlarge our elevator to cover the entire universe you jump and the entire universe rushed up to meet you. But then of course newton would argue looking at the etarth we know these lines would be curved and not straight because the earth is a globe.well that's a great point and it stamped einstine for years. Until he realized curved space everything could still be traveling in one direction with a local frame if reference. In other words according to einstine gravity is simply an object heading towards you. Sounds insane imagining the earth running into us but it does and we run into it from our local frame.
edit on 12/25/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
Einstine would say gravity doesn't exist it is simply frames moving...

In other words according to einstine gravity is simply an object heading towards you.


Oh dear.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   

All evidence shows that humans act as if they have free will, and there is no evidence of mechanisms to believe otherwise. Even intrinsic chaos of theoretically deterministic systems (like brains if imagined classically, which is not the reality) is enough to make them sufficiently unpredictable so future behavior is sufficiently unconstrained by physics, and dominated by internal cognitive reasoning programs---i.e. human thought. Human brains have enough stored state which is externally invisible---so one must assume that humans have free will.


I don't understand why members are intejecting this in a physics thread.

Newcomb's Paradox explains the 'Free Will' thing. But beyond that you can't know about something that is outside your domain. A "5th dimensional being", could perhaps answer a question about the 'free will' (or anything outside the 3-D domain), but the "answer" would probably sound like gibberish to a 3rd dimensional being.

Just as telling a 'Flatlander' - "the answer is 'UP'". The FL-er would say 'what's that'?



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: vjr1113
can someone tell me how strong a structure has to be to withstand 38k tons falling at freefall speed for about 12 feet?


A differential equation based on tensile strength of the materials that factors in the thermal stress due to pressure and external heating.

You need a computer to do it for you if you want to test the NIST explanation. Even reducing to a highly simplified system with blocks of averages will give you drastically different results.

Again, you need a computer to do it for you.

-FBB



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Contrary to Einstein, gravity is not a result of space time geometry.
Just lift a bucket of water and tell me if bent space is causing you to feel the weight of the bucket
a reply to: greenreflections



the weight of the bucket comes from two factors. Bucket is stretched from the bottom (along axes Z pointing toward Earth) and inner forces (QM forces) that will maintain bucket's shape. The stretch is not proportional, bucket is being pseudo pulled from the bottom along Z axes and inner forces that hold bucket in one piece will drag top part of the bucket to preserve its original, balanced shape.

I have probably two ways to verify my point.

Two dimensional object which has zero thickness positioned horizontal to gravity source will experience no gravity because it has Z=0. Only X and Y position.

Another silly one..

if we create a hologram in interstellar space and calibrate it to be precise square, for example, and then shoot same hologram from out side of gravity well to inside gravity well, we should see our holographic square become rectangular, elongated toward the center of gravity. That would show how volume of space-time is distorted compare to flat space-time.

)




just to continue my previous reply. Gravity is considered a pseudo force. Isolated volume geometry is changed in the area affected in our case with the bucket.
QM forces 'know' nothing about GR and inside a volume they occupy, they have to stay balanced as a bucket with its length, height and what not.

Weight is the effect of QM forces of the bucket that are acting upon changed shape of the bucket. Thats where the trick of weight comes in. For as long as there is 'an obstacle' (Earth surface or your hand keeping the bucket from falling down), there will be effect of weight. If there are no obstacle, the object is weightless.

When I lift a bucket off the ground, I work against the gradient, I mean, pulling the bucket up n essence I give the bucket more room to continue the fall. QM forces would move further down to compensate that yet another shape alteration. That's when I feel the weight of the bucket. Bucket would stay in one piece because gradient matrix is not altering volume aggressively enough for QM bindings to break. Near black hole our Z axis would be stretched such that our bucket would fall apart because QM forces holding the bucket together fail to adapt to new shape condition quick enough as the bucket accelerates. Also, that shape change is getting narrower, not only longer due to spherical nature of gravity well.

Any merit to all that gibberish I wrote above?


)



edit on 27-12-2015 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-12-2015 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-12-2015 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Hey I got a few questions.

Was watching starwars the other day and some questions came up regarding the lightsabre. Would the blade of the light sabre have any mass to it that's worth measuring? Question being if it doesn't have any mass how are you going to swing it around with out the counter balance? The actual weight of the blade that a swordsman would rely on to actually get the blade swinging properly through it's movements. I see them doing redondos (big circular motions) and Floretes (flashy technique were the tip of the sword drops down in a backhanded circular motion and the weight of it brings it back up over your shoulder ready to go) Standard swashbuckling like sword techniques, but all require the blade to actually weigh something to do. So if a lightsabre blade has no weight, then WTF? Wouldn't a lightsabre duel look more like two guys pointing flashlights at each other instead or just bad kendo or fencing and not all the spinning moves and other assorted techniques.

Next question. Shouldn't the lightsabre be really fricken hot and something no swordsman would want anywhere near them. I mean how far away would you have to hold the weapon from yourself so you don't get burned by the heat generated by that blade. Or would the magical field that holds the sword blade together somehow trap all the heat inside?

Finally, given they had all their tools and weapons, who would win in a fight. Boba Fett or the Predator?



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Star Wars is a fairytale universe although it has been given scifi overcoat.
Any nonstandard physics of the Star Wars universe is simply magic. Trying to find physical explanations to magic can sometimes be entertaining but will lead to complicated contradictions.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Pirvonen

Yeah but that doesn't answer the question. Who can produce more mechanical energy a Sasquatch or a Wookie? Wookies are known for their strength and have been used as slave labor by the empire to build the death star. Sasquatches are also known for their strength and have been known to snap 8 inch in diameter tree trunks to mark their territory. SO who would win in a weight lifting contest?



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Whatever happened to the bright spots on ceres?



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
They are still under investigation, the dawn spacecraft is on it still.

A quick googling results that the most likely scenario is basically salt. Brine formed under the surface was disrupted during the impact that created the craters these objects are found in, causing salt brine to come to the surface. Due to Ceres being small, it holds no atmosphere. The brine would freeze and the water would slowly sublimate away and leave only the salts behind.

This theory is backed up based on multiple bits of evidence. One of which is that the craters that host bright spots have a haze that is visible at low angles, which would suggest that, water haze that is loosely thermally bound to the crater like a cup.

Still, its very much open to what it is, would be nice to get a really really good close up.

Alternative theory... Aliens
edit on 28-12-2015 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr



Thus goes back to the elevator if your in an elevator einstine said you can't tell if your moving. In fact suppose the etlevator was moving up you jump and the floor would head towards you. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that and gravity. Well that is a huge clue into the reality of gravity.


WHAT ???

you are in an moving elevator standing on the floor ( forced by gravity I assume ) and you jump and the floor heads towards you and that's gravity ??

you mean only if the elevator is constantly accelerating...
if the elevator has to accelerate all the time, when does it reach the speed of light then ?
OH, I almost forgot, the supposed time dilation...

so... gravity is a constant acceleration and time goes slower and slower as we come closer and closer to the speed of light ??

LOL



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections



Weight is the effect of QM forces of the bucket that are acting upon changed shape of the bucket. Thats where the trick of weight comes in. For as long as there is 'an obstacle' (Earth surface or your hand keeping the bucket from falling down), there will be effect of weight. If there are no obstacle, the object is weightless.


what QM forces ??
what is a quantum mechanical force ???

the mathematical strong force ??
it's a myth, an mathematical construct to hold the theoretical grain particles together.

look, we know like charges repel ( nobody knows why... "facepalm" )
the theoretical atom model puts those grains (protons) together to get a nucleus, but this is an dilemma, those "spheres" should repel and fly away from each other...
..so, one "smart guy" said, there must be a force holding them together !!!
and so, strong force was invented

nobody saw it, nobody touched it... all mathematical invention for the purpose of a theory.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: greenreflections



Weight is the effect of QM forces of the bucket that are acting upon changed shape of the bucket. Thats where the trick of weight comes in. For as long as there is 'an obstacle' (Earth surface or your hand keeping the bucket from falling down), there will be effect of weight. If there are no obstacle, the object is weightless.


what QM forces ??
what is a quantum mechanical force ???

the mathematical strong force ??
it's a myth, an mathematical construct to hold the theoretical grain particles together.

look, we know like charges repel ( nobody knows why... "facepalm" )
the theoretical atom model puts those grains (protons) together to get a nucleus, but this is an dilemma, those "spheres" should repel and fly away from each other...
..so, one "smart guy" said, there must be a force holding them together !!!
and so, strong force was invented

nobody saw it, nobody touched it... all mathematical invention for the purpose of a theory.



The hadron collider has proven the strong and weak nuclear foece. It isn't just mathematics it is an obervation of billions of collisions. Your argument is silly and uninformed.




top topics



 
74
<< 222  223  224    226  227  228 >>

log in

join