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: 251
74
<< 248  249  250    252  253  254 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Erno86

If the ship has no mass then why do you need some wacky propulsion system? Just fart out the back and that should instantly push it to C wherever C's goalposts are set at.




posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Erno86

If the ship has no mass then why do you need some wacky propulsion system? Just fart out the back and that should instantly push it to C wherever C's goalposts are set at.
c isn't fast enough for some people.

Getting the mass to zero is hard enough, but to go faster than c, zero mass isn't good enough, you have to get it below zero. But that's imposs.....oops, I'm trying to not use that word and keep an open mind.


Some people might say it's impossible, I would say it seems improbable for mass to go below zero, but who knows what discoveries the next 1000 years hold, if the next eruption of Yellowstone can hold off at least that long, or if we don't turn Earth into another Venus by then with runaway greenhouse effect?



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hey lets face it for interstellar space travel C is too slow. I ain't waiting 4.3 years too see if there's anything interesting at Proxima Centauri.

Ye of little faith ...what about the Sakharov Drive? It got the Leonov to Jupiter!



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   
2 questions:

Can Cherenkov radiation caused by gamma rays hitting the atmosphere be seen with the eye?

When a black hole is gravitationally attracted toward another mass, what part of the black hole exactly is moving and how?
edit on 27-1-2016 by Tearman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR
No need.
Light pressure from a nearby star would send you on your merry way quite nicely.

"Push the button, pull the switch, cut the beam, make it march!"

Libby drive. Except he didn't eliminate mass, just inertia.

edit on 1/27/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
c isn't fast enough for some people.

Getting the mass to zero is hard enough, but to go faster than c, zero mass isn't good enough, you have to get it below zero. But that's imposs.....oops, I'm trying to not use that word and keep an open mind.




See, if we could find a mechanism to increase the speed of light we'd bypass the zero / infinite mass problem.
And probably get a Nobel prize!
edit on 2812016 by Poon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tearman
2 questions:

Can Cherenkov radiation caused by gamma rays hitting the atmosphere be seen with the eye?
There are gamma rays hitting the atmosphere? They can't be causing much of a glow from sources other than the sun or you'd see that at night, so that leaves the sun. I think it produces gamma rays in the core, but they don't escape, so normally there aren't many gamma rays from the sun either, the exception being from solar flares. So you could try looking when there's a solar flare but the prospects of seeing a blue glow against the background of a blue sky seem dim. The more spectacular effects reported in solar flares or storm events are people seeing the aurorae at lower latitudes than normal, most notably during the Carrington event:


On September 1–2, 1859, one of the largest recorded geomagnetic storms (as recorded by ground-based magnetometers) occurred. Aurorae were seen around the world, those in the northern hemisphere as far south as the Caribbean; those over the Rocky Mountains in the U.S. were so bright that their glow awoke gold miners, who began preparing breakfast because they thought it was morning.[5] People in the northeastern United States could read a newspaper by the aurora's light.[7] The aurora was visible as far from the poles as Sub-Saharan Africa (Senegal, Mauritania, perhaps Monrovia, Liberia), Monterrey and Tampico in Mexico, Queensland, Cuba and Hawaii.



When a black hole is gravitationally attracted toward another mass, what part of the black hole exactly is moving and how?
Let's examine Jupiter's orbit for an example. All the planets but especially Jupiter cause the sun to wobble a tiny bit as they both orbit their common barycenter, or "center of mass". The barycenter which the sun and Jupiter both orbit is 742,000 km from the center of the sun, while the sun has a radius of 696,000 km so the sun-Jupiter barycenter is just above the surface of the sun.

Now imagine replacing the sun with a black hole of the same mass. Jupiter and the black hole would do the same dance as before orbiting the same barycenter, located 742,000 km from the center of the black hole. The black hole doesn't really have a "surface", but we can calculate an event horizon for a hypothetical solar mass black hole which has a radius just under 3 km. We don't have a good model yet for what exactly is inside the event horizon of the black hole, but we wouldn't need to know that to say that Jupiter and the solar mass black hole would orbit their common barycenter about the same way if you replaced the sun with a black hole of the same mass.


originally posted by: Poon

See, if we could find a mechanism to increase the speed of light we'd bypass the zero / infinite mass problem.
And probably get a Nobel prize!
Yes but folding space time like folding a sheet of paper would allow you to travel at less than the speed of light though wormholes, which might be theoretically less impossible than changing the speed of light. Bending space-time is something we theoretically know how to do, changing the speed of light in a vacuum isn't, is it?

edit on 2016128 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

No, not yet anyway.

I'd wager though that increasing the speed of light is theoretically less impossible than mass travelling at the speed of light!



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Reading a Boeing study on Gravity and had a WTF moment with their conclusion. Anybody wanna take a crack at explaining this?

Here's a quote from their conclusion section.

"Gravity is an accelerating force field which appears to be generated by a circular E field and a polar dipole (Br, Bz) magnetic fields. These electric and magnetic fields are composed of (AC) waves. The electric field is only the secondary harmonic. While the B field has a (DC) term along with two harmonics. The E and B fields are then mixed (ExB) to create a four harmonic beat frequency to produce the accelerating gravity force field."


edit on 28-1-2016 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BASSPLYR
No need.
Light pressure from a nearby star would send you on your merry way quite nicely.

"Push the button, pull the switch, cut the beam, make it march!"

Libby drive. Except he didn't eliminate mass, just inertia.


Oooh, oohh if you hijack the ship can I be the number 2, or is that number 1?



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Poon
I'd wager though that increasing the speed of light is theoretically less impossible than mass travelling at the speed of light!
I'm not sure what you base that wager on, but I have no idea how to do either one.

a reply to: BASSPLYR
Have you got something against posting links to the content you quote from other sources? Sometimes context is important, and that's not always apparent from a short quote.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Tearman
2 questions:

Can Cherenkov radiation caused by gamma rays hitting the atmosphere be seen with the eye?
There are gamma rays hitting the atmosphere?
I'm talking about cosmic rays. Or the gamma rays suspected to be emmitted by primordial black holes (if they exist).




When a black hole is gravitationally attracted toward another mass, what part of the black hole exactly is moving and how?
Let's examine Jupiter's orbit for an example. All the planets but especially Jupiter cause the sun to wobble a tiny bit as they both orbit their common barycenter, or "center of mass". The barycenter which the sun and Jupiter both orbit is 742,000 km from the center of the sun, while the sun has a radius of 696,000 km so the sun-Jupiter barycenter is just above the surface of the sun.

Now imagine replacing the sun with a black hole of the same mass. Jupiter and the black hole would do the same dance as before orbiting the same barycenter, located 742,000 km from the center of the black hole. The black hole doesn't really have a "surface", but we can calculate an event horizon for a hypothetical solar mass black hole which has a radius just under 3 km. We don't have a good model yet for what exactly is inside the event horizon of the black hole, but we wouldn't need to know that to say that Jupiter and the solar mass black hole would orbit their common barycenter about the same way if you replaced the sun with a black hole of the same mass.


I thought it was the matter that is attracted by gravity. But the matter that formed the black hole ceased to exist as far as I understand it.
edit on 28-1-2016 by Tearman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

No no issues with that just lazy I suppose. Here

It's broken up into two parts. Part two near the end in his conclusions is where I pulled the quote.

Part 1: www.scribd.com...

Part 2: www.gravitycontrol.org...

Have fun with it. I read it and went ???????????? Say what?!? Surprised it supposedly came from Boeing.

Came across it while searching for a paper written by an engineer from McDonnel Douglas regarding a similar topic.

So I wanna know from physicists and engineers is this quackery?
edit on 28-1-2016 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2016 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Erno86

If the ship has no mass then why do you need some wacky propulsion system? Just fart out the back and that should instantly push it to C wherever C's goalposts are set at.


The starship has mass...it's the magnetic shield, surrounding the aerial craft, that has no mass --- thusly avoiding the derogatory effects of the speed of light barrier. I'm trying to figure out how these Foo Fighters function --- at least in our atmosphere ---- because it's a given [at least for myself] that the otherworlder's have the capability of interstellar travel, thus I have come to a possible foregone conclusion...that the star travelers [and since I don't believe in the possibility of warp drive, extra dimensions, or the viability of eons of time it might take the otherworlders to get to another star system at or below the speed of light] have broken the speed of light barrier; by the very fact that they've visited our planet numerous times.

Starlight photons are an infinite source of fuel for a micro-mini black hole propulsion unit in outer space, unless the starship is embedded in a dust cloud ---Thusly...no need for a flatus star drive.


edit on 28-1-2016 by Erno86 because: added a word

edit on 28-1-2016 by Erno86 because: ditto

edit on 28-1-2016 by Erno86 because: removed a word



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Erno86 ,

So you're saying there is a shell around the ship in the form of some unique mag field but that the test mass inside isn't effected. Well hows that mass going to go superluminal without being a PART of the field and within it's influences. I'm confused.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Erno86 ,

So you're saying there is a shell around the ship in the form of some unique mag field but that the test mass inside isn't effected. Well hows that mass going to go superluminal without being a PART of the field and within it's influences. I'm confused.



Because the magnetic shield has zero mass, which should also have the ability too deflect micro-meteoroids, cosmic rays --- including the ability to negate the elongation effect at the speed of light barrier. The starship is suspended behind the two magnetic shields that can house the fusion plasma [in certain situations] --- The plasma also has the ability to create it's own magnetic field. The main magnetic field is created by the micro-mini black hole, that is onboard the starship --- And since the magnetic shields have zero mass ---- faster than light speeds [superluminal] are possible.
edit on 28-1-2016 by Erno86 because: added a few words



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tearman
I'm talking about cosmic rays. Or the gamma rays suspected to be emmitted by primordial black holes (if they exist).
No, you're not talking about cosmic rays if you're asking about gamma rays. "Cosmic rays" is a misnomer, they're not "rays", not X-rays or gamma rays, they are particles. Searches for radiation from primordial black holes have not found them.


I thought it was the matter that is attracted by gravity. But the matter that formed the black hole ceased to exist as far as I understand it.
According to relativity it's the stress energy tensor which can be mass, energy or non-gravitational force fields, which results in gravitational attraction.

Black holes still have mass but nobody is really sure what form it's in. Saying that the matter no longer exists is a consequence of trying to apply the theory of relativity which seems to break down or at least loses its ability to make predictions about what happens in a black hole, so it's commonly thought we need something like a "quantum theory of gravity" for a better model of black holes, which we don't yet have.


originally posted by: BASSPLYR
So I wanna know from physicists and engineers is this quackery?
To some extent yes. There are many correct statements so it's not all quackery, but this statement is about 99.99999999.....999% wrong:


“Gravity Conclusions (cont)” the accelerating force commonly called “gravity’ seems to be the resultant force generated from the interaction (F= E x B) of the earth’s electric and magnetic fields.
The reason it's not 100% wrong is some miniscule amount of the Earth's gravity actually does come from electric and magnetic fields as explained in this video, which also explains that it's not very much, maybe something like 0.00000000000001% or probably less than that, I haven't tried to calculate it exactly. But I know that the speed of light squared is a huge number and the Earth has a lot of mass so when you multiply those big numbers that's what gives you most of the Earth's gravity, and compared to that the Earth's magnetic field is relatively weak as far as generating gravity goes.

Common Physics Misconceptions


Also keep in mind that some planets seem to have very little in the way of electric or magnetic fields yet their gravity doesn't seem to be lower than we would expect from just considering the mass as a result. This is what you get when an electronics technician tries to do the work of a senior research scientist, and it shows my point about context, since now I know that to be the case and that the author isn't a scientist.

edit on 2016128 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


Sorry to interrupt your rant about charged particles, but the primary reason for building the LHC was to detect the Higgs boson which has no charge.


and again... ignoring the truth...

The Higgs construct comes from the theory and was not THE REASON to build the LHC.
LHC is an advancement machine to previous machines build to study particle physics.
Not build to detect Higgs per se !
please STOP talking nonsense !

LHC detectors
we read in there...



Tracking devices

Tracking devices reveal the paths of electrically charged particles as they pass through and interact with suitable substances....


electric interaction !!!




Calorimeters

A calorimeter measures the energy a particle loses as it passes through. It is usually designed to stop entirely or “absorb” most of the particles coming from a collision, forcing them to deposit all of their energy within the detector....

Electromagnetic calorimeters measure the energy of electrons and photons as they interact with the electrically charged particles in matter.

Hadronic calorimeters sample the energy of hadrons (...) as they interact with atomic nuclei.


electric interaction !!!
matter interaction !!!




Particle-identification detectors

Once a particle has passed through the tracking devices and the calorimeters, physicists have two further methods of narrowing down its identity. Both methods work by detecting radiation emitted by charged particles. When a charged particle travels faster than light does through a given medium, it emits Cherenkov radiation at an angle that depends on its velocity.


electric interaction !!!
electric interaction !!!


something is wrong with your arguments dude...


a reply to: ErosA433



Sorry KrzYma... but no... just 100% nope you get Zero points, and we are all worse off having read this rambling. We have tried to explain things, your responses are just to say "WAVES! EM!" it means... not very much except to point out you do not have any idea of how the LHC searches are conducted.


do you have any idea ??

I didn't said and was wondering how you come to the conclusion I would suggest that you...


"I have no idea how the detectors work, because they are complicated... and it is so complex that i dont understand it and thus it is BS"


your subconsciousness maybe ??
I don't know


edit on 29-1-2016 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-1-2016 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Poon
In theory If you replicated the casimir effect experiment with 2 parallel plates a couple of nm apart and fired x-rays, say, down the middle could you increase c by increasing vacuum permittivity?

And could you test this experimentally by manufacturing a looong tube with a 2 nm hole down the centre which you send x-rays through?


I was talking about the casimir effect down here on page 60 something or 120... don't remember

the casimir effect is not a mystical quantum something fluctuation anything...

it is the attraction force of the electric field, just simple like that

it works only on metals because they have the "free electrons" to produce this effect

and NO, no propagation of the magnetic field bigger than C
C speed is a measurement in local field and if you change it, the field, you change everything else so C stays C no matter what... in this local system



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



Yes but folding space time like folding a sheet of paper would allow you to travel at less than the speed of light though wormholes, which might be theoretically less impossible than changing the speed of light. Bending space-time is something we theoretically know how to do, changing the speed of light in a vacuum isn't, is it?


I see you have it backwards !!

you can fold a piece of paper your theory is written on, sure...

in reality you can only increase or decrease the field density, or better if you influence it's shape..
making the field "flowing" into certain direction is key.

has nothing to do with space folding though... 5m left is and stays 5m left, 1.5 right is and stays 1.5 right

edit on 29-1-2016 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
74
<< 248  249  250    252  253  254 >>

log in

join