It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

page: 228
80
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:53 PM

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?

By freefall, do you mean from a standstill, or terminal velocity? Acceleration would be a major factor in the former.
But, if this is about to become a 9/11 discussion, kindly disregard my response.

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 03:14 PM
Can anyone give us the meaning of Planck’s constant in laymen’s terms?

Well appreciated

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 03:54 PM

Meaning in what sense? Planck´s constant is a manifestation of the structure of our universe, and can be seen from a number of different perspectives.

To me Planck´s constant is a result of the universe being composed of a large amount of very tiny things. Those very tiny things can act in tiny tiny steps, and the step size is handy to mathematize in Planck units.

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 05:38 PM

originally posted by: Pirvonen

Meaning in what sense? Planck´s constant is a manifestation of the structure of our universe, and can be seen from a number of different perspectives.

To me Planck´s constant is a result of the universe being composed of a large amount of very tiny things. Those very tiny things can act in tiny tiny steps, and the step size is handy to mathematize in Planck units.

Thank you.

I read the wiki definition and comprehend it somewhat abstractly but was trying to get a real world handle on it.

Has something to do with “links a wave or particle’s frequency with its total energy”

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 07:05 PM

originally posted by: [post=20194357]greenreflections]
Any merit to all that gibberish I wrote above?You can refer to your own post as gibberish without getting in trouble, but it's not good manners for other people to call it that.

Physicists have their own language which does use some words with specific definitions and meanings, but it's largely mathematical and since you didn't provide the mathematical expressions to clarify the meaning of what you wrote it's hard to evaluate. It's not clear to me for example whether you're trying to agree or disagree with existing theories such as relativity and quantum mechanics.

First, please refrain from lecturing me on how to conduct conversations. I did not insult any one. You are of no authority to me what and how should I write my replies. Stick to the topic. Phage did insult me, now you do the same in more subtle manner. What's up with that? Just because my command in English is not up to par with Jack London? This is low.

Second, someone has expressed an interest on how objects get kick start the fall when inside gravity well area. I have proposed my view on how this might work and now suffering consequences in a form of insults? Tank you, her Professor.
You yourself did not provide any.

Third and the final, I did suggest a fusion of QM and GR where both work together. No Grand unification is necessary as both theories work together to beat the quest with out grand unite.

cheers bud)

edit on 1-1-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 07:35 PM

Can you please link to or post a reply to the comment in which you explain the lack of need for a GUT? I'm interested in reading your thoughts on the subject, but this is an exceedingly long thread to search through page by page.
Or maybe just comment with the page number?
Thanks, green.

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 08:06 PM
Please point out where I insulted you?

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 09:12 PM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
It is agreed there is a difference between how an actually stationary mass warps space-time

And how a moving mass warps space-time.
You lost me right there because all I have to do to make a moving mass stationary is place myself on the reference frame of the moving mass. The mass which appeared to be moving from another reference frame then appears stationary to me, thus your distinction is unclear.

But you wouldn't suggest that absolutely no mass truly moves at all would you?

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 09:27 PM

originally posted by: Phage
Please point out where I insulted you?

originally posted by: Phage

how about you have no idea.

Too many words?

Get out. You have a nerve?

edit on 1-1-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 09:35 PM
Oh you mean where you asked:

Phage, can you in few words explain what gravity well means?

Which I did, then asked if I had used too many words? Because I did actually use more than a few.
edit on 1/1/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 09:41 PM

originally posted by: Phage
Oh you mean where you asked:

Phage, can you in few words explain what gravity well means?

Which I did, then asked if I had used too many words? Because I did actually use more than a few.

You have lost my respect to anything you post here. My respect to you as human being and your opinion to what ever you say means zero. You are an opportunist with nothing to contribute in my eyes.

so long dude.

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 10:36 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi
But you wouldn't suggest that absolutely no mass truly moves at all would you?
My argument goes like this:

A valid reference frame can be established which is at rest with the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. That's basically a reference frame of the big bang/universe. If a mass is at rest in that frame I would find it hard to argue that it's moving, and it's certainly not with respect to the CMB.

If your point is that most known masses are not in that reference frame that's absolutely true.

However, the fact remains that you would need to demonstrate something unique or different about the gravity of a mass at rest in the CMB frame to support the claim that motion has something fundamental to do with the creation of gravity, and it makes no sense to me that you can conceive of that. It would be a difficult experiment to carry out since the Earth is moving at a good clip compared to the CMB frame.

originally posted by: greenreflections
First, please refrain from lecturing me on how to conduct conversations. I did not insult any one. You are of no authority to me what and how should I write my replies. Stick to the topic. Phage did insult me, now you do the same in more subtle manner. What's up with that?
You asked for an assessment of what you wrote, and I said it it's difficult to assess without the supporting math. How much of an authority do I need to be to say that? I don't think it's any secret that there's a lot of math in physics and I've also been asking other contributors who posit unique ideas for supporting math so I'm not picking on you. You may also notice I don't ask for the supporting math of existing theories like relativity which have already been published.

No Grand unification is necessary as both theories work together to beat the quest with out grand unite.
At lower energies there's not so much of a problem, but at higher energies it's still a problem.

Personally I still don't know if the graviton exists or not and that would be nice to know if I'm deciding how to unify the two major theories.

Also how do we go about notifying the scientists working on grand unification that it's no longer necessary because you said so? (But also tell them don't ask for the math because you'll feel insulted).

edit on 201611 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 11:05 PM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
But you wouldn't suggest that absolutely no mass truly moves at all would you?
My argument goes like this:

A valid reference frame can be established which is at rest with the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. That's basically a reference frame of the big bang/universe. If a mass is at rest in that frame I would find it hard to argue that it's moving, and it's certainly not with respect to the CMB.

If your point is that most known masses are not in that reference frame that's absolutely true.

However, the fact remains that you would need to demonstrate something unique or different about the gravity of a mass at rest in the CMB frame to support the claim that motion has something fundamental to do with the creation of gravity, and it makes no sense to me that you can conceive of that. It would be a difficult experiment to carry out since the Earth is moving at a good clip compared to the CMB frame.

originally posted by: greenreflections
First, please refrain from lecturing me on how to conduct conversations. I did not insult any one. You are of no authority to me what and how should I write my replies. Stick to the topic. Phage did insult me, now you do the same in more subtle manner. What's up with that?
You asked for an assessment of what you wrote, and I said it it's difficult to assess without the supporting math.

If there any particular questions just ask.

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 04:51 AM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
My argument goes like this:

A valid reference frame can be established which is at rest with the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. That's basically a reference frame of the big bang/universe. If a mass is at rest in that frame I would find it hard to argue that it's moving, and it's certainly not with respect to the CMB.

If your point is that most known masses are not in that reference frame that's absolutely true.

However, the fact remains that you would need to demonstrate something unique or different about the gravity of a mass at rest in the CMB frame to support the claim that motion has something fundamental to do with the creation of gravity, and it makes no sense to me that you can conceive of that. It would be a difficult experiment to carry out since the Earth is moving at a good clip compared to the CMB frame.

I never said 'motion has something fundamental to do with the creation of gravity', I said there is an important to consider difference between the creation of gravity in regards to hypothetically truly at rest mass and a hypothetical truly moving mass.

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 06:08 AM

Is there a threshold effect between "non-moving"/"moving" gravitation? Where should this threshold be? If "absolute non-moving", then that must be relegated to a sophistic argument, for in our universe there is pretty much no way to say whether something is not moving.

Is the function of motion on gravitation a continuous one? The current range of measurements provide no support for the this hypothesis. What should be the shape of the correlation of motion to gravitation, what should we expect, in what regime or values should we look?

Current measurements off gravity effects have revealed no substantive difference between noon and midnight when the rotation of the earth substracts or adds to the orbital velocity of the planet. Neither have there been differences at different times of the year, that is when the earth is at different positions of the orbit.

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 08:52 AM

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I never said 'motion has something fundamental to do with the creation of gravity', I said there is an important to consider difference between the creation of gravity in regards to hypothetically truly at rest mass and a hypothetical truly moving mass.
Can you please explain the distinction in say mathematical terms? I still don't understand the difference that "clarification" is trying to make. Relativity says that relativistic motion can affect apparent gravity at relativistic velocities but it's not that important to consider in non-relativistic motion where the relativistic effects are near zero. Are you proposing different math than that and if so, what?

Good questions.

edit on 201612 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:20 AM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Can you please explain the distinction in say mathematical terms? I still don't understand the difference that "clarification" is trying to make. Relativity says that relativistic motion can affect apparent gravity at relativistic velocities but it's not that important to consider in non-relativistic motion where the relativistic effects are near zero. Are you proposing different math than that and if so, what?

I understand there is a potential that you are being willfully ignorant either to distract me, have me more clearly express my insights, and/or you being something of an authority figure at least on this thread, continue to appear to maintain the status quo of propaganda; anyway...

I can express it in geometric terms (which is a branch of mathematics) but it is easier to just use words (two plus two equals four);

Imagine 3 identical masses (1, 2, 3), far enough apart from one another so that they do not extremely significantly have a gravitational effect on one another;

Imagine they are traveling from starting point A towards finish point Z, the distance between A and Z being an arbitrary amount of light years;

Imagine they are traveling precisely parallel to one another;

Imagine mass 1 is traveling 100 mph;

Imagine mass 2 is traveling 1,000 mph;

Imagine mass 3 is traveling 10,000 mph;

I would propose that a 4th test mass, in approaching infinite trials, consisting of releasing the test mass from approaching infinite directions, with approaching infinitely varied velocities, (the same direction, and velocity, applied to each of the 3 (1,2,3) masses) without this 4th test mass ever touching the physical body of any of the 3 (1,2,3) masses, would react differently in reference to the same 'control' (direction, velocity), the difference, the variable being;

The effect the movement of mass has on the geometry of space time.

To be more clear, the test mass would approach mass 1, 2 and 3, each at a distance of 200 ft, 300 ft, 400 ft, 500 ft, etc. at all angles, at all velocities.

My hypothesis would be, that the 4th mass, the test mass, would react differently in the 3 cases.

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 11:21 AM
I'm just trying to understand what you're talking about because it's not clear to me.

Let's say we have 2 Earth-like spheres moving relative to a fictitious reference frame where one Sphere is moving at 100 mph and another is moving at 10,000 mph to use your figures. Since those velocities are not relativistic I think we can say relativistic effects would be negligible. I also call them spheres since the Earth isn't perfectly spherical so we can assume radial symmerty of the radius and mass distribution. I posit that measuring the acceleration due to the sphere's gravity would be ~9.8 m/s^2 near the spheres' surface in both cases, and of course gravity follows the inverse square law so it would diminish as distance from the spheres' surface increased.

So are you saying that you'd measure something other than 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration in either or both of those cases? If so, what, and how does your hypothesis calculate the difference?

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 12:55 PM

With further thought on my part, I realize I do not comprehend why/how an object is forced to earths surface.

First we must think that the earth is already in the galaxies gravity well, though we can say first, the sun is already in galaxies gravity well;

then we can say the earth is in galaxy gravity well + sun gravity well;

Then we can say we and an object in our hand are in galaxy gravity well + sun gravity well + earth gravity well;

but the trouble is we do not even understand how gravity well mechanism works;

Which is why I declared, there must be a physical force forcing an object to earths surface;

If there is 'pulling or pushing' there must be 'touching';

For I use my 'Earths tail example' to ask, if you say 'no pulling no pushing, but free falling', I say, what would force an object to free fall towards earths surface, instead of free fall in any other direction, when an object is let go from earths tail?

There must be physical material, that forces the object to the earths surface.

You have to think as if the universe is a physical machine (if a simple definition of machine can be 'interacting parts', then universe is not far off) and think about what you would have to do to create this machine;

What materials and with what laws of the materials interactions would you have to introduce, quantity and quality, in order to result in the phenomenon of gravity?

Oh and if you think about gravity wells, stop thinking about it in 2d, because reality is not 2d and continuing to think of it that way is not progressing towards solution and not representing knowledge and understanding, the well must be 4d material, you have to think 'how might the nature of a material be which is invisible and exists seemingly literally everywhere at least in the galaxy (maybe outside it too)(and maybe it exists in between the material of earth, as it seemingly must is gravity works everywhere on earth and right above earths surface) which when multiple masses exist in the presence of this 4d material and such an interesting scenario like that of an object for a moment being non attached from the surface of earth, the object is forced toward the surface.

The atmosphere is constantly being forced toward the earths surface as well, but it is not done so so compressed and densified that objects cannot move the relative particles of atmosphere, atmosphere in that sense is not turned into a solid by the constant force of gravity forcing atmosphere towards the surface, and whatever the nature of the 4d gravity phenomenon material is, it has easier access to forcing an object such as a brick toward the surface, than random particles of atmosphere at that bricks same height of which it is dropped. What a curious mystery. I will comprehend this, and it will be nowhere near the last thing I do.

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 01:22 PM

Define 'touching' and 'physical material'.

new topics

top topics

80