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: 23
74
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
I have been rubber necking this thread and loving it, I will flee if it turns into a 911 debate....




posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 04:24 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




I believe your in the wrong forum if people here wanted to discuss 9/11


the thread is ASK me anything about physics....and I did.

I gave ALL the information as to why.....and you refuse to respond to the information regarding the SCIENCE.

YOU and the little minoins are turning this into a 9-11 debate, I refuse...I asked a physics question..



now tell me HOW this new phenomenon of "LOW TEMP thermal expansion" works to REMOVE structural resistance as OFFICIALLY CLAIMED it did.

this is science CLAIMING science did something never before seen in science...then REFUSING to support it through science.

if you have no clue....then all you had to do is say so.

how simple is that.........



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 05:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob
a reply to: dragonridr
the thread is ASK me anything about physics....and I did.


There could not be a more important question to ask about physics than one related to the "official story" of 9/11.

We educate ourselves for a reason.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

Here ill give you the tools you need to take back to the 9/11 forum and you can test out their claims. See your question isnt about physics its wanting confirmation on someones work sorry wrong place for that. If you dont believe the government report start a thread but im pretty sure there are probably hundreds to discuss this allready but guess what that isnt here have a nice day.


www.physicstutorials.org...



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   
As I said, we question here the MS science and not governments papers... sorry for that,
I myself would like to see the explanation for LOW TEMP thermal expansion.

This brings me to a another question for the physicists here...

Question: Please explain the attraction/repulsion force in this video starting at 2:20 till 25:15

Tesla coil powered light bolt repels human hand and attracts a piece of copper



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
As I said, we question here the MS science and not governments papers...


Actually, government papers regarding science are part of mainstream science.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz



edit on 4-8-2014 by teamcommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

For many years, I have been considering the use of an "inertia impulse" engine as a means of propulsion. I have worked out several interations of a basic design but lack the mathematical and technical knowledge to carry it much past the idea and design stage. If the basics are sound, I see no reason it would not work. My main problem is to calculate the amount of mass which is to be moved within the engine in order to put a craft into motion and sustain its flight. I also know this will require more than one such engine but the mass would be distributed equally among whatever number is required.
These engines are, of course, to use electricity to move the masses, so the mass of a generating plant must also be allowed, but this would be calculate as a part of the overall craft. I have no idea as to the mass of craft but I am thinking the masses of the engine would likely be some function of this figure. If M= the craft then M+ (? %) should be the total masses within the engines; I am speaking of movement in "open space", essentially 0 gravity.
As to the amount of power to be generated, this would be a function of the impulse and recovery time of the engines themselves. This could be increased by an increase in the input of current, but this should not make any changes in the mass of the craft.
It is my aim to achieve and maintain an acceleration of at least 1G, with a maximum output of 3G, from these engines over the duration of the crafts journey. I am well aware that these accelerations may not be instantaneous, but this is not the primary goal. It is the sustainability of the acceleration which I am trying to achieve.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: KrzYma
As I said, we question here the MS science and not governments papers...


Actually, government papers regarding science are part of mainstream science.


I know, should put it in sarcasm marks



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Regarding thermal expansion, it is a simple concept and we can call that physics.

However if you want to discuss how it applies to building design, that is beyond the topic of physics, it's an engineering topic and therefore beyond the scope of this thread. They don't teach you the specifics of building design in physics courses, but they do teach that in engineering courses. Also there is a separate forum for discussing the buildings which collapsed on 9/11, use that forum for discussion of that topic.

a reply to: teamcommander
I'm not sure if there's a question about physics in there, but I don't understand the concept of the drive from your description so I can't comment on that. If it's "propellantless", that's the kind of drive NASA would love to have. See the NASA graphic I posted of the propellant problem we have with current rocket technology which uses propellant.

NASA has two related links you may wish to read. This one is for the general public:

This web site focuses on the propulsion related issues, explaining the challenges of interstellar travel, existing propulsion ideas, and the possibilities emerging from scientific literature that may one day provide the desired breakthroughs. To simplify the presentation for the general public, analogies to familiar science fiction are used.

This link is targeted at scientists and engineers:

Breakthrough Propulsion Physics

I found this comment interesting:


Cautionary note: On a topic this visionary and whose implications are profound, there is a risk of encountering, premature conclusions in the literature, driven by overzealous enthusiasts as well as pedantic pessimists. The most productive path is to seek out and build upon publications that focus on the critical make-break issues and lingering unknowns, both from the innovators' perspective and their skeptical challengers. Avoid works with broad-sweeping and unsubstantiated claims, either supportive or dismissive.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Also there is a separate forum for discussing the buildings which collapsed on 9/11, use that forum for discussion of that topic.


No, not a political forum.

We need a new thread in Science and Technology because engineering is technology, is it not?



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Also there is a separate forum for discussing the buildings which collapsed on 9/11, use that forum for discussion of that topic.


No, not a political forum.

We need a new thread in Science and Technology because engineering is technology, is it not?



engineering is the mother of technology !!

I put my head way down to tribute you... engineering



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Also there is a separate forum for discussing the buildings which collapsed on 9/11, use that forum for discussion of that topic.


No, not a political forum.

We need a new thread in Science and Technology because engineering is technology, is it not?



Well your discussion needs to be brought up with the ATS staff they created a section for 9/11 and in that section they indeed do discuss the engineering of the building if you wish to move it from there than my advice would be write the staff. In the mean time as has been stated by the Op in this thread that is outside the scope of this thread. In other words no need to talk about it here try bringing it up someplace like here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is my last response to the 9/11 issue i have tried to be nice but at this point ill just say take it elsewhere thank you for playing. In other words stop trying to derail a thread for a topic that no one cares about other than a few who have had years to come up with nothing other than questions and nothing to support the crazy ideas i have read in the 9/11 forums it scared me. I cant believe some of the things i saw at how gullible people are but than again people buy free energy devices so im not that surprised after all.


edit on 8/4/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




Regarding thermal expansion, it is a simple concept and we can call that physics.
However if you want to discuss how it applies to building design, that is beyond the topic of physics,



it does NOT apply one iota to building design.....buildings are NOT designed to EXPAND.

and this is 100% a 'physics' question...for LOW TEMP thermal expansion is a SUPPOSEDLY, a physics process.

[gee.....WHY do you leave off the two OTHER words that complete the phrase.....LOW TEMP!!!!!]


there is an AGREED consensus in science that ALL mass accelerating at g. can DO NO WORK!

except in this case where this new physics phenomenon, never before seen in the history of ANYTHING, to incorporate a process never before seen.

why do you ignore this question???

[IMO....cause ya know it's BULL#....cause ya KNOW it's a LIE?]...but that's a story for another thread.





They don't teach you the specifics of building design in physics



this has NOTHING to do with building design.......LOW TEMP THERMAL EXPANSION is NOT a concept of building design!!!!...lmao...


.....unless YOU can explain it to me as a natural occurrence of physics, as the original post intended.....but IMO, it's a BULLSH*T, unproven, invalidated, NON peer review claim designed to shut people up.

here are the SCIENTIFIC findings showing the GLOBAL UNIFIED acceleration equal to g. occurring, starting at 1.74 seconds when we see the kink form, allowing FFA @ 1.75 seconds to 4.0 seconds....then 2.5 seconds later, it's done.



NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"


during those 2.3 seconds of FFA, we see the ENTIRE building moving as one...no part is doing anything different than any other part...i.e accelerating equal to g.

to which ALL taught science DEMANDS that in order to do what it did, it NEEDS a clear path in which to constantly accelerate...as it DID.

so....how does fire at ONE end of the building accomplish that task BEFORE 1.74 seconds???

how does this NEW PHENOMENON remove the structural resistance, allowing acceleration to occur, INCLUDING....

105 vertical feet of LOAD BEARING continuous vertical support....
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....

....must disappear to ALLOW what we all see....yes, ALL known agreed upon taught science demands it DISAPPEAR......

except for this OFFICIAL CLAIM new physics occurred...


"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."
Shyam Sunder and the Hypothesis crew at the 2008 NIST technical briefing


we can open ANY science/physics text.......turn to the section of Gravitational Acceleration and READ......
"rate of acceleration seen by ALL mass REGARDLESS of weight toward the earth, at sea level, WITHIN a VACUUM is 9.8m/s^2.

hmm.....so, IF this is possible, then why can't ya tell me HOW this is possible to have that SAME rate of ACCELERATION seen under 'CONTROLLED conditions, also to have occurring globally and UNIFIED within a 47 story steel frame @ 1.75 SECONDS, when kink forms, to 4.0s of the collapse....2.5 seconds later, it's done....6.5 second building collapse from a new physics phenomenon....never occurring before or since.


so please explain this process where warm steel removes itself from existence to allow the global unified acceleration
that was found to occur in a steel framed building.....only ever occurring that ONE time....



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




they created a section for 9/11


to bad I asked a physics question.....

you can/will not play the 9-11 trump card.

Presenting a theory within a scientific context by using NOTHING to validate the theory is called BULL#!

..no matter who says it.

Simple fact of SCIENCE: if any of the potential energy from the accelerating mass went to destroying itself, it will lose kinetic energy which requires that the building slow in its fall.......but since it did fall at free-fall acceleration, it wasn't causing itself to collapse.

now why don't you tell me how this NEW process of "LOW TEMP thermal expansion" did do what ALL TAUGHT science states is IMPOSSIBLE.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 05:28 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob
a reply to: dragonridr

Whether it's physics or engineering, it's the Science and Technology forum where objective, clear-headed discussion is supposed to take place about issues to do with how things work.

In my opinion, a topic like this is where the rubber meets the road when it comes to showing your expertise and getting to the heart of a matter.






The 9/11 sub-forum is in the conspiracies forum. This has nothing to do with conspiracies.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


The scientific consensus is that the QM model makes accurate predictions so it's an effective model.
However there is no scientific consensus about the underlying reality of the model. The most popular interpretation is called the "Copenhagen interpretation", but there are others


Thanks for the thread Arbitrageur, been reading your posts for years, great stuff!

My question is this:

It's been long since I've looked into the subject, but from my understanding, last time I checked or saw something about QM, there were some realities that nobody understood.

For instance, I recall (although I can't remember the name) of something weird about Quantum particles. The way they acted differently if a human eye was looking, and when it wasn't. I'm not implicating something like conscious, but has anyone figured out why they seem to be aware of that interaction? How can a particle know if it's being observed or not?

I don't know if you know what I'm talking about, but if you do, have any recent developments or discoveries been made to understand those different behaviors? And what implications do those discoveries have in our real world?

I think QM are very interesting because they seem to be an open door to unlock some of the Universe mysteries, and the way they seem to behave - from what I can understand on the subject - shows that there may be a lot of different things that we have yet to discover.

Fascinating stuff!
edit on 5-8-2014 by VashKonnor because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 06:22 AM
link   
hi new here not sure if this is where i ask a question but here goes

concerning the motion of our solar system if the stars appear to revolve around earth because we spin and they all do this basically around the north star as this aligns with our axis of rotation and the earth orbits the sun once a year then i can only assume science thinks that the earth is tilted and the sun orbital axis is also tilted so as to allow the stars to orbit and align with earth through out the year.
Please correct me if this is wrong because assuming this is right then how does science explain why we can also see other gallaxys that keep alignment with our rotation as this would mean the other gallaxy is also following earths orbit around the sun, it seems silly to have all the stars moving together around the sun when you only need to move the sun
this may be dum but if you put earth in the centre and spinning as per normal with the sun orbiting earth on a 23.5*ecliptic plane then this would seem much simpler and would allow for other galaxys to keep there place in the sky



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: VashKonnor
It's called the Observer Effect:


In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure...

An important aspect of the concept of measurement has been clarified in some QM experiments where a small, complex, and non-sentient sensor proved sufficient as an "observer"—there is no need for a conscious "observer".


I made a thread about the observer effect on something more familiar here, to show it's not really a spooky concept, though the problem can get significant when trying to measure very small things, since as discussed earlier in the thread to observe something smaller than a planck length would require a photon with so much energy it would collapse into a black hole, and in fact we have severe problems with measurements long before we get that small:

The "observer effect": Is it proof the system is "aware it's being observed?"


originally posted by: edfloaters
concerning the motion of our solar system if the stars appear to revolve around earth because we spin and they all do this basically around the north star as this aligns with our axis of rotation and the earth orbits the sun once a year then i can only assume science thinks that the earth is tilted and the sun orbital axis is also tilted so as to allow the stars to orbit and align with earth through out the year.
The Earth's axis is tilted with respect to the plane of its orbit, and the Earth's orbit is tilted with respect to the plane of the Milky Way Galaxy, neither has anything to with "stars orbiting and aligning with earth through out the year." If the stars were closer you would have a point, but you may not realize the incredibly vast distances of these stars.


Please correct me if this is wrong
The idea you have wouldn't be wrong if the stars were closer, but the stars are so far away only the most precision measurements can see the Parallax which occurs when the Earth moves 6 months around its orbit, as described below. The angles involved are very very very small, but for the closest stars we can actually measure these angles with precision instruments and that tells us how far away some of the nearby stars are.


As the Earth orbits around the Sun, the position of nearby stars will appear to shift slightly against the more distant background. These shifts are angles in an isosceles triangle, with 2 AU (the distance between the extreme positions of earth's orbit around the sun) making the short leg of the triangle and the distance to the star being the long legs. The amount of shift is quite small, measuring 1 arcsecond for an object at a distance of 1 parsec (3.26 light-years), thereafter decreasing in angular amount as the reciprocal of the distance. Astronomers usually express distances in units of parsecs (parallax arcseconds); light-years are used in popular media, but almost invariably values in light-years have been converted from numbers tabulated in parsecs in the original source.

Because parallax becomes smaller for a greater stellar distance, useful distances can be measured only for stars whose parallax is larger than the precision of the measurement. Parallax measurements typically have an accuracy measured in milliarcseconds. In the 1990s, for example, the Hipparcos mission obtained parallaxes for over a hundred thousand stars with a precision of about a milliarcsecond, providing useful distances for stars out to a few hundred parsecs.
So a few hundred parsecs means no more than 1000 light years, is about the distance where parallax measurements are useful with current technology. Since the Milky way is 100,000 light years across, this distance only covers a small fraction of stars in the Milky Way. The "nearby" in galactic terms Andromeda galaxy is 2,000,000 light years away, so measuring the parallax of Andromeda is beyond our current technology by a vast margin.

It may also interest you to know that the Earth's axis of rotation wobbles, so while the North star Polaris is almost lined up with the Earth's axis now, this is only temporary:

Polaris

The moving of Polaris towards, and in the future away from, the celestial pole, is due to the precession of the equinoxes. The celestial pole will move away from (Polaris) after the 21st century, passing close by Gamma Cephei by about the 41st century. Historically, the celestial pole was close to Thuban around 2500 BC., and during Classical Antiquity, it was closer to Kochab (β UMi) than to α UMi. It was about the same angular distance from either β UMi than to α UMi by the end of Late Antiquity. The Greek navigator Pytheas in ca. 320 BC described the celestial pole as devoid of stars.
It will take about 26,000 years for the Earth's axis to draw the circle shown in the animation below and return to near Polaris:

Precession of the Earth's axis



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I do appreciate your reply. However, this is very close to the same reply I got from a gentleman from NASA in 1963, as he watched my first model jumping up from the floor at my highschool science fair. It was only one module, so all it did was jump up about a foot and fall back.
Yes, it is self contained so I guess it is propellentless. I have not taken the effort since to build another, I just thought there had, by now, been enough improvement in propulsion units that mine would be kind of out dated.
To whom and how should I make contact with someone to see if there is any interest in this thing?



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join