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: 252
74
<< 249  250  251    253  254  255 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   
they talk about folding space-time. Funny. No one knows if space-time imposed over some sort of ultra thin grid of strings.(?) Grid would be rigid, I guess, as flux of energy would swirl around them forming loops at plank length, which become ''building blocks'' of matter and that grid supposed to withstand the energy flux. How do you bend, leave alone fold, something like this? For the space ship to move space-time needs physical bending. Not just manipulating some fields, imo. There has to be huge mass source in fron of the ship to get it 'falling'' against Earth gravity, for example. But that source of energy would have to travel infront of the ship. It cannot be mounted on the ship itself, it would be type 2 perpetum mobile sort of device in that case, which is impossible. It would be like placing big propeller on the sail boat to fill the sails and get boat moving.

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

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

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

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




posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

Well done at word association there dude. Doesn't mean you know how these detectors truely work other than saying "INTERACTION....ELECTRIC!"

Yes, well done, you spotted some words you think you understand, but what you demonstrate is a lack of actual understanding of how it comes together... yet you want to attempt to argue your point using quite a small amount of ammunition

It is like reading a manual or quick start guide and then pretending to be an expert... its not how scientific debate really works.

So lets go really simple here...

A tracker such as a CCD tracker works by collecting ionization. A charged particle passes through the material, while it passes it will kick out electrons from the material in its path, and in total, not loose very much energy itself while it does this.

Yes well done this is a electronic interaction... it is basically electron scattering.

The CCD collects that charge because the particle track has likely produced the ionisation in one or more of its pixels. You read this out very similar to a camera. Alternatively, you drift these charge carriers through the semi-conductor material and inductively read it out at the anode.

So, no wavy field involved here, the EM is basically a scattering interaction.


So why is the EM calorimeter different? Well its because it is designed to make the particle interacting with it to stop and deposit all its energy within the device. It does this using high Z material, which, prompts a high interaction rate in terms of ionisation but also other processes too. A high energy Electron, or Gamma in this will potentially pair produce and reduce in energy via a conversion cascade. Electron goes in, smashes into another electron, and the outcome is actually dominated by Compton scattering, Braking radiation and pair production. Basically you reduce the energy of your incoming particle by inducing pair production and subsequent energy loss via Compton scattering and brem... BUT and this is the big BUT... the read out is still basically done via collecting the stray electrons that are kicked out of their atom as the high energy particles pass through and scatter.

In this case often for a calorimeter, this ionisation is converted into photons via the use of scintillators, which exhibit some nice chemistry

So Two detectors, read out in a similar way with two very different purposes and modes of operation... none of which are explained by simply going

WAVES! FIELDS! OMG

We know enough about these processes that we can very easily simulate showers to a high order of accuracy and design detectors out of specific materials and stuctures to give us different capabilities... and... yeah... never does these designs read out fields... they often use fields to bend particles in curves, but... those fields are not the instrumentation...


So there we go, in one post, more scientific content and explanation than your entire reply to me in which you said effectively "Your an idiot you dont know what you are talking about"


edit on 29-1-2016 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Poon
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!


C speed is a constant in outer space that is free of dust clouds. Yet a starship that has mass...in a vacuum, using photon propulsion, theoretically --- should easily get to C and beyond into the superluminal realm; as long as the starship is protected by a magnetic shield.

Any comments are appreciated...



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Erno86
My comment is, here is Sonny White's paper on how a speculative faster than light propulsion system might work:

Warp Field Mechanics 101

Where is the paper describing what you're talking about?



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

Compton scattering...



Compton derived the mathematical relationship between the shift in wavelength and the scattering angle of the X-rays by assuming that each scattered X-ray photon interacted with only one electron.


is there only one electron the the detector ??
look, the whole theory is based on assumptions and fixes all over the place.

all based on the assumption light can be a particle, photon construct and other misunderstanding of what we actually observe in experiments.

AND I NEVER SAID YOU ARE AN IDIOT !
I said the theory you know so good is wrong



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

Nope, see what you don't get is that, compton scattering occurs and what happens to the products after? they go on to interact multiple times... so no... what is said is still perfectly fine

Just clutching at straws there



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

you don't get it, I didn't said the scattering doesn't exist, I just said the explanation of it is wrong because based on wrong assumptions...

let me ask you, how does an atom look like ?
start with an simple one like hydrogen

two point like particle ? a proton and a electron around ?

what about gold ?
what make you think a gold atom is "just" a stuck of more protons and more electrons plus neutrons ?
is neutron a third particle or proton/electron pair ??
if not... why is it not stable outside the atom ???

what about the construct photon ??
wave package ?

sure light comes in bursts, the emitting atoms make sure is not a constant infinite radiation, but why has it to be a particle like something that travels ?? it doesn't !!


edit on 30-1-2016 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)


here, look how imbecile the picture for Campton scattering is

edit on 30-1-2016 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2016 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)


and yea, it is a physics for THC or CRACK driven minds...

edit on 30-1-2016 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Erno86

you know so much about LHC so I have to ask you...

what kind of detector is detecting the UPquark ?
what kind of detector is detecting the DOWNquark ?
what about gluon detection ??

how do they work?
how are they made and what kind of material they are composite of ???



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma



sure light comes in bursts, the emitting atoms make sure is not a constant infinite radiation, but why has it to be a particle like something that travels ?? it doesn't !!


Many atoms when emit, like thermonuclear reaction inside a star, will make it a constant infinite radiation.

Quantas of energy combined will make it a flow impossible to distinguish individual ''packets''. The fact that energy can be emitted only in doses of quanta does not make it a particle. It is a 3d wave of a strict minimum length allowed that is emitted. It is

like a layer of electron 3d shell separates from atom premise. That piece that left an atom is same shape as the cloud only quanta deep. Like a 3d donut.

When photon emitted it is emitted from the whole of the atom, not from single objective point of the cloud, say from its upper left side that starts to fly that direction.

cheers)
edit on 30-1-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Tearman


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


Aurora borealis and Aurora australis contain parts of it so yes, you can see it !



When a black hole is gravitationally attracted toward another mass, what part of the black hole exactly is moving and how?


there is no such thing as black holes but... any mass, however big it is, will move faster on the side that is closer to to the other mass, will get stretched... it is caled the Tidal_force



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   


When a black hole is gravitationally attracted toward another mass, what part of the black hole exactly is moving and how?


Lone black hole will act as any other celestial body me thinks. There will be tidal irregularity in its shape, imo, especially when another black hole approaching. Why did you ask?



cheers)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections



I am supporting you in questioning official thought line pop science hogwash.


thanks, but don't take it wrong, I would rather agree with what is told in the schools than be against it...
Unfortunately MS science is more about securing the job and go with the flow than standing up against so much nonsense in the theory...



...thermonuclear reaction inside a star...


no... watch this




Quantas of energy combined will make it a flow inbossible to distiguish individual ''packets''.


not quite !
EM field is an additive field, true, but the frequencies are not.
If two emitters even emit the same frequency, the distance between them don't let the wave to combine into "the same" or "exactly the same following"
distinguishing between something is just a resolution question



like a layer of electron 3d shell separates from atom premise. That piece that left an atom is same shape as the cloud only quanta deep. Like a 3d donut. When photon emitted it is emitted from the whole of the atom, not from single objective point of the cloud, say from its upper left side that starts to fly that direction.


I'm not sure how you mean this, would need a picture, but YES,
radiation emission is not only from the electron but from electron/proton interaction...
or electron/electron interaction...




..To fully understand the nature of a wave, it is important to consider the medium as a collection of interacting particles...


well yes, the idea comes from the though...
"if you can count it, you can charge for it"

what is not possible in continuous.. something... think about it !

...

propagation speed is something most people don't understand.
how could they if reality is all about movement.
propagation is the exchange of "knowledge"

like trends..
OH.. pink is in ? cool , I'm pink too !
we don't like meat... ohh... I don't eat that !

just kidding


nobody knows what a field is !
electric field, magnetic field...
we can measure them, sure, but how they come to exist we don't know!
probably we never will.. but this in not a problem

we can manipulate those fields, and we come closer and closer to the actual particles that make it up... nano technology

did you know, that if man takes an carbon lattice with holes in it, and shines light through it, a certain amount of light will pass this barrier...
but if man takes gold atoms ( single atoms ) and block this holes, even more light comes through ??
interesting, right ?



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
here, look how imbecile the picture for Campton scattering is
As bedlam tried to explain, electrons are like wooden balls, painted yellow, not peas like in your video. I'm sure he was joking and they're not like either one so posting a video showing electrons as little peas is about like the raisin bread analogy for galaxies, where we say raisins get more space between them when the raisin bread bakes. Galaxies are not really like raisins and electrons are not really like peas and most people seem to be able to figure out these are just analogies for illustrating concepts.

If you want to dispute the science the way to do it is to pick a paper on the Compton effect and challenge some of the claims in the paper with possible sources of error or misinterpretation. Your youtube video isn't intended to be a scientific resource so it just seems silly to argue against science by posting youtube videos like that. If it was a youtube video of a scientist explaining his rebuttal to a scientific paper that might have some scientific value.


originally posted by: greenreflections
Lone black hole will act as any other celestial body me thinks. There will be tidal irregularity in its shape, imo, especially when another black hole approaching. Why did you ask?
He was asking because relativity says the volume of matter in a black hole goes to zero and it becomes a point, so to say that there is irregularity in the shape of a point has no meaning, if relativity was true. How can a point have a shape? A number of scientists believe that relativity is generally true outside of black holes but they are dissatisfied with the prediction that the matter takes up no volume and has infinite density inside a black hole and think we need a better theory to explain what happens with black holes.

On the other hand there's the "no hair theorem" which says that it doesn't really matter what's inside, all the external properties of a black hole can be modeled from three parameters:
-mass
-charge
-angular momentum
However that's not very helpful for people who want to know what's inside and that theorem hasn't been proven.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



Your youtube video isn't intended to be a scientific resource so it just seems silly to argue against science by posting youtube videos like that.


haha... NO!!!
this video is not from me or for me to explain how it is
it's just some random video from the net..
actually it is the opposite of what you think..
what it shows is how MS science works !
bunch of crack heads explaining # they have no idea off
they are just parroting some text from the books and maybe think they understand it

I'm talking about how it is presented to the common population dude !

I know you know a lot about the common theory, no doubt, but every time I put some arguments that are "unthinkable" for MS theory, I get ignored or discriminated or.. yeah.. ignored !!

What I want is that science goes back to the experiments made before theory and look at the outcome of those experiments from today's pov

and the black hole problem is BS because there is none... no black holes not problem
.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



He was asking because relativity says the volume of matter in a black hole goes to zero and it becomes a point, so to say that there is irregularity in the shape of a point has no meaning.


No kidding? I was naturally referring to event horizon shape. Geesss..


edit on 30-1-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



As bedlam tried to explain, electrons are like wooden balls, painted yellow, not peas like in your video.


I did miss this one... so please show me the picture how an atom looks like !

I think I can see how it looks... uncertainty plays a big role in it, right ?
but this even works against the theory of point like charges in atoms, right ?

so.. if there is nothing "exact" to "bounce" off why should compton scattering be real, or better said the way it is described ?

the radiation is there, sure, BUT NOT like described by the Nobel recipient individuals..


I know you don't like me, or my thought here...
on the end we are here on ATS!



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections

the shape of any big mass is a sphere, point!

look, one atom (not plasma) is one electron and one proton... hydrogen
1 minus charge and 1 plus charge = two charge density !

hydrogen with an neutron is
2 minus charge and 2 plus charge
1 electron 1 proton 2 electron/proton 0 charge = 4 charge density !

trillions billions of those make what looks like a "black hole"... WHY ?
because EM radiation get's bend on it's path
field density...
EM wave has dimensions, so if it propagates close to this mass, one the side of the wave is closer than other,
the density in the field is time! ( denser slower propagation ) so it gets bend in certain direction, thowards to the mass

if the field density is big enough it can even turn 180 degree !

they call it a "gravitational lens "


edit on 30-1-2016 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2016 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

No, no, PHOTONS are little wooden balls painted yellow. Electrons are little wooden balls painted black.

At least in every toy atom/molecule kit I ever had.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: Arbitrageur

No, no, PHOTONS are little wooden balls painted yellow. Electrons are little wooden balls painted black.

At least in every toy atom/molecule kit I ever had.



at least you acknowledged paint as being a medium to your black and yellow.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: Arbitrageur

No, no, PHOTONS are little wooden balls painted yellow. Electrons are little wooden balls painted black.

At least in every toy atom/molecule kit I ever had.



at least you acknowledged paint as being a medium to your black and yellow.


But of course. How else do you get them that color?

They also have little holes in so you can attach them with the wooden sticks that hold the atom together.




top topics



 
74
<< 249  250  251    253  254  255 >>

log in

join