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: 258
74
<< 255  256  257    259  260  261 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

Deny Ignorance and maybe read a history of particle physics text...

that and maybe browse this

pdg.lbl.gov...

Trouble is i think you don't understand it




posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

really... ??

here a different theory that has even "more value" for more people than particle physics... AND more power

The Nine Choirs of Angels

Deny Ignorance and maybe read a history of this one



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: KrzYma

Deny Ignorance and maybe read a history of particle physics text...
Here's one of the many physics books in my library that talks about experimental evidence which is pretty good, but it's a bit technical for someone whose background is watching youtube videos, so I'm not sure someone without some physics background can read this book and understand what the authors are talking about:



The blog by Matt Strassler is much more readable for non-physicists but to make it so, lots of technical information is omitted, perhaps including some of the experiments which get a bit technical, so I don't know how much this will help but it's a starting place:

The Structure of matter

Speaking of Matt Strassler, I ran across some comments by him about MOND which made me think of mbkennel's question to the experts which I didn't answer because I'm no MOND expert


originally posted by: mbkennel
Question to experts:

Are MOND or other modified gravity schemes proposed to explain galactic rotation curves ruled or or disfavored by confirmation of gravitational radiation as expected under GR?

Or, in other words, what forms of modified kinematics & dynamics are still partly compatible with GR in some limits?


Maybe Strassler's comments would prove more useful than mine:

Dark Matter Debates

I'm not sure what exactly you expect to see with gravitational radiation, but I noted in the recent article about detecting gravitational waves that:

power 50 times greater than the output of all the stars in the universe combined vibrated a pair of L-shaped antennas in Washington State and Louisiana known as LIGO on Sept. 14.
OK so we can barely detect power 50 times greater than the output of all the stars in the universe combined in our LIGO detector, as I understand it, so I'm not sure what kind of gravitational radiation you expect to be measurable or how its influence will be ascertained if these are the magnitudes at which gravitational waves become detectable.

Anyway Matt Strassler doesn't seem married to the WIMP idea at all and is very open-minded to any explanation which best fits observations.

If imafungi was my student I'd ask him to write Strassler's comment from the comment section of that link on the blackboard because I still don't think he gets this point:


One’s reasoning can be perfectly sound, and yet nature may disagree with it; similarly, one can apply bad reasoning and yet guess what nature is doing.
So every time we read a post explaining how sound reasoning leads to the right answer, we should remember this comment, which infers that it's not sound reasoning but experiment and observation which reveals nature's behavior. Up until about 1900 or so one could be expected to believe the "sound reasoning" argument as we didn't have that much to contradict it, like we do since about 1905 and later.

edit on 2016219 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Planetary System Formation Simulation (200 AU View)





Ok, and so in that video it can be seen there are some bright objects that end up rather far away from the center; just as in the milky way there are stars very far from the center;

and so with some spiral galaxies (I dont know if we could measure our own accurately, the stars on the edge velocity and momentum);

when all the mass starting from the center working outward is counted, it does not seem like it would be enough gravity causation to contain the stars at the edge;

So it is said there must be more mass that is not counted in order to contain those stars at the edge in this gravity system;

I guess what I dont get is, how placing a lot more mass around the edge areas, will contain/maintain the shape as the shape is seen;

Like lets say there were thousands of planets just out of reach of our solar systems gravitational hold, it is thought if more matter was added (like cushion) on all sides of these thousands of planets, that that would alter the gravitational geometry of the system, and then allow those thousands of planets to orbit as a part of the solar system?

Like you answered prior a question like; dark matter gravitational interacts with itself, I suppose to avoid a regress, of well what keeps the dark matter in the system, dark matter that keeps the dark matter that keeps the dark matter that keeps the dark matter...

So the essence of my question is; we know if you have a center mass and bodies orbiting it, that if you continually add mass to the center, the bodies orbits will be altered? And it is thought they will be altered in such a way to be continuously more attracted to that center; but adding mass away from the center, I would be the first to admit not understanding even the basic mechanical technique that is thought would occur, to compel the bodies furthest from the center, to not continuously travel further from the center.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So every time we read a post explaining how sound reasoning leads to the right answer, we should remember this comment, which infers that it's not sound reasoning but experiment and observation which reveals nature's behavior. Up until about 1900 or so one could be expected to believe the "sound reasoning" argument as we didn't have that much to contradict it, like we do since about 1905 and later.


I advocate sound reasoning, in accordance to the totality of information that is accessible. Reality must be itself absolutely perfectly sound reasoning, continuously; Reality continuously proves; the earth must rotate because reasons x y z, the sun must emit radiation because reasons x y z, trees grow because reasons x y z; there is matter energy, its interactions and movements; when wondering or questioning about any of these things, what one is seeking is reasons; one uses reasons to seek reasons.

Your criticism of me is unjust; surely over our years of speaking I have been less than perfect; surely I have assumed and presumed and imagined wrongly, surely I have been wrongly confident, surely I have thought I have known; but the majority of what I have done was question everything that is said to be known, the only way to approach any type of progress, any type of questioning, any type of organizing and making sense, is unavoidably by reason, by reasoning; of course you can go about your studies and decision making and experimentation for no reasons, you can set parameters and invent particles and fields for no reason; but there will never be a reason for me, to not use reason, to understand reality, to understand and question the totality of scientific information that has been accumulated thus far.

The only situation here at all, the only reason you are compelled to say these things against me, is because it is so satisfying to believe you are right, confident, comfortable, in control, knowing... and you can be all those things, you can feel all those ways, but that does not mean in anyway that you are justified or right in doing so.

If you can admit that mans comprehension of reality is not complete, then you have no criticism of me, then you agree with me; because all I have been doing, is questioning mans comprehension of reality.

Not just to be a jerk, not to attempt to harm your emotions, because I believe there is truth, and I believe it is not fully known, and I believe I desire to help at least myself, get closer to knowing the truth.

I do not fundamentally dismiss all science, I am very careful and particular with what I question and why; it is very reasonable for me to question what I question and why.

The only reason it appears there is a problem, or the need for you to say what you did, which is the reason I am saying what I am, is because you do not like to question, you do not like to consider what is not known; that is very difficult and scary.

I am aware of this, you are aware of this, and there is no problem between us, because we understand the reasons for our actions. If you admit that man does not fully comprehend nature, and you admit that you personally do not like to take the responsibility of attempting to bring man closer to fully comprehending nature, and I admit that that is primarily what I am interested in attempting, with my interest in science at all; then if you were aware, that the only way to attempt to progress understanding, is by questioning, and experimenting, and thinking, and reasoning, and understanding all the aspects and reasons behind these things, then you would be aware you have no criticism of me, only potentially envious respect, because I am and have been doing exactly what I am suppose to do, and have increasingly been approaching success, as I could have only hope to have done, according to the attempt I have set out in attempting. They are two distinct paths but they dont have to be, your path is reading, absorbing, my path is thinking, imagining, they both require both; but I am hardcore desiring progress and clarification, and you are hardcore....waiting.


In relation to what Kryzma has been saying; You know those children toys with the different shape blocks and the different holes to place them in; cube, sphere, hexagon maybe, triangle;

I think what Kryzma was trying to wonder at, was do the detectors 'touch' real matter; or is the totality of detection, by means of EM signature? Now this is a, touchy, subject I presume, because perhaps technically all interactions ever are via
EM; like you can say the same thing, 'did you ever really detect the hamburger you touched and ate, or was only EM signatures detected';

If that is the case, that Kryzmas initial absolute point is truish; then you are arguing from the stand point of being very confident in the methods and maps of EM signatures.

I am guessing that those not on Kryzmas side, are potentially rightfully confident, that EM can be utilized as if it were any other material object, in the sense that; if you had a piece of wood board, and fired different size and shape bullets at different angles; and then attempting to say by looking at the holes in the wood, which bullet was which, or something;

That EM is being used like the wood board;

The only questioning and concern I would have is, well, when theories are built on potential houses of cards, and one minor thing may be off on the layer below it, which may transfer to the next layer, and corrections and adjustments are made on next layers, and pretty soon there may be many layers of theories that fit well together but have minor errors in them, and these errors may build up, and as close and happy as all may be in continually approaching a clearer comprehension of reality, there may be some who freak out at the prospect of potentially not comprehending things perfectly;

So, for example, I do not believe that EM is fully comprehended; I may be wrong in stating so, or it may be such little degrees off it not matter at all; but then I guess where Kryzmas statements come in, is then potentially using something that contains an unknown, or uncertainty, or error, as a tool in calculating something else that wants to be known;

This is pure conjecture at this point, but I believe there is an important potential fact or idea in these concepts, even to separate from reality and just consider 'wow, that is something that can happen and it would not be very nice or fun for physicists';

If they defined tools as truth, and used tools on tools on tools, which contained even one minor error, then the result of what was built, may contain even one minor error, or worse.


At the end of it, overlooking little potential errors here and there, or fixing them in sketchy ways, may leave problems for others who cant stand there being problems with mankinds great comprehension of reality; it may haunt those who truly care.


So is it true, as Kryzma is arguing; that particle detectors detect using solely EM radiation; or is there not even a conceivable way to detect anything without using EM radiation?



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: ErosA433

really... ??

here a different theory that has even "more value" for more people than particle physics... AND more power

The Nine Choirs of Angels

Deny Ignorance and maybe read a history of this one


There has to be alternative line of building physics to what is officially obtruded. May be there is a clandestine funding to support it. Who knows what theory is being tested at CERN for real.

There are so many twisted out of normal sense concepts that layman like me, be I less enthusiastic, would long ago abandon the scene for feeling like I am insulted.

And you know what, as new announcements are coming from CERN, local to ATS gurus easily explain it to the point that they almost predicted that outcome. Visionaries. Non of them said 'I don't know'. Well, Arbitrageur did once or twice.

edit on 19-2-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Anybody allows the possibility that human mind may be an 'ultimate knot' of matter? Brain could be an evolutionary reached cell organization complexity where cosmos can experience (looked on) itself?

thanks

cheers board)



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Ques. what is the physics behind Ouija board?



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I guess what I dont get is, how placing a lot more mass around the edge areas, will contain/maintain the shape as the shape is seen;

Like lets say there were thousands of planets just out of reach of our solar systems gravitational hold, it is thought if more matter was added (like cushion) on all sides of these thousands of planets, that that would alter the gravitational geometry of the system, and then allow those thousands of planets to orbit as a part of the solar system?
You can only explain things so far without math. You have reached the point where math is needed. You've said before you don't want to get into math.


Like you answered prior a question like; dark matter gravitational interacts with itself, I suppose to avoid a regress, of well what keeps the dark matter in the system, dark matter that keeps the dark matter that keeps the dark matter that keeps the dark matter...
Understanding the problem is simple, it's only the solution we don't get. The problem is there's not enough of the stuff we can see to account for the way we see it moving and gravitationally lensing using known physics.

So we're trying to fit any model that might work to explain what we see. One of them is there is more matter that's not seen, call it dark matter, and there has to be a lot of it to explain what we see, if that's the answer. If that's not the answer somebody needs to collect some good evidence to show what the right answer is.


So the essence of my question is; we know if you have a center mass and bodies orbiting it, that if you continually add mass to the center, the bodies orbits will be altered? And it is thought they will be altered in such a way to be continuously more attracted to that center; but adding mass away from the center, I would be the first to admit not understanding even the basic mechanical technique that is thought would occur, to compel the bodies furthest from the center, to not continuously travel further from the center.
Once again you're getting into questions that will remain unanswered for you personally as long as you have an aversion to mathematics. There's a reason we use math, not because it's hard or to try to make an elitist club of physicists, but because it's useful. If you want to find out how useful it is, put it to work answering your questions.


originally posted by: ImaFungi
I advocate sound reasoning, in accordance to the totality of information that is accessible. Reality must be itself absolutely perfectly sound reasoning, continuously; Reality continuously proves; the earth must rotate because reasons x y z.


It seems to work for classical physics like the Earth's rotation. But I don't see how humans could have possibly reasoned out quantum mechanics without relying on observation as the guide. What path of reason would lead you to conclude there should be "spooky action at a distance" as Einstein called it? None that I can see yet it has been experimentally confirmed.

edit on 2016220 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

My question is this.

This is a torus can you please explain to me as simple as possible what it does ? and where they in the universe and how many there are and anything else you may know.

Thanks in advance.

en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 03:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma





You have no clue, do you ? :



No. What do you mean "detection of any charged particles is based on electric interaction"? In an accelerator there are many different ways to detect particles. Are you talking about detecting charged particles in an accelerator?









NO, I say it does not exist in the form it is theorized in particle physics.
Nobody can explain why atoms nuclei holds together in the picture we have right now, so strong force has been invented to hold the theory.
Nobody ever observed or measured the so called "strong force", it is based on calculations only and the idea, coulombic force changes sign at atomic levels.
So even if this theory would be right, it is en electric force, not electro-magnetic "force" like radiation



Of course we have. Gluons are the messenger for the strong force and they have been detected many times.
They are not photons, no inverse square, unlike photons they are self interacting, gluons are not infinite in range either. They are both neutral electrically but a gluon has a colour charge. Photons are detected in a electromagnetic calorimeter in an accelerator but gluons are not. The energy of gluon jets is detected in other ways.

How would the electric force be able to duplicate the strength of the strong force? How would the electric force be able to push against the gravity of a neutron star and not be crushed into a black hole?



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Ques. what is the physics behind Ouija board?

Ans. It doesn't do anything. I took one out of the box and looked at it and it just sat there.

I watched a video of some people using one and in that case the question isn't about physics, it's more about psychology and neurobiology.



originally posted by: DaysLate
a reply to: Arbitrageur

My question is this.

This is a torus can you please explain to me as simple as possible what it does ?
According to your source it's a geometric shape which is rather like a donut, so what the word torus does is describe the shape of a donut more or less.


and where they in the universe and how many there are and anything else you may know.

en.wikipedia.org...
There are some practical applications of the shape besides donuts, in electronics for example. One application is to take an iron core shaped like a donut, and wind one or more wires around it. If one wire it's an efficient inductor and more than one it can be an efficient transformer. The advantages of that shape are that the donut shape of the iron core being circular allows the magnetic field to stay confined mostly to that core and unlike other designs it doesn't have an air gap. While it is efficient, it's not a source of free energy, and a way to end world hunger and cure all disease as one crackpot who wound his torus slightly differently claims, in fact it looks like his torus is a little less efficient than a comparable commercial torus. He shows it deflects an EM meter more near it as a supposed sign it's better, but to electronics engineers that's bad, as it's a sign of leakage aka electromagnetic interference and noise that they want to keep low, so they don't want it higher like that.

Depending on how loose you want to get with your definition of Torus, you can talk about things like magnetic dipoles of planets for example. The magnetic field shape of a planet isn't strictly a torus because there's a field gradient where it fades away and it doesn't have a well-defined edge like a donut, but still it's close enough that we refer to it as a torus sometimes. If you look at this illustration you can see the "circles" are not quite circular, whereas the geometric shape of a torus is based on rotating a circle about an axis.

csep10.phys.utk.edu...



The field is doughnut shaped (toroidal), containing giant versions of the Earth's Van Allen Belts that trap high-energy charged particles (mostly electrons and protons).
So not exactly a donut shape, but I can see a rough comparison to a donut. Geometrically speaking however it's not strictly a torus. Any magnetic dipole can be characterized this way and there are too many of those to count, because not only do planets have magnetic dipoles in many cases, but so do things like atoms and electrons.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you I sent you a u2u



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Understanding the problem is simple, it's only the solution we don't get. The problem is there's not enough of the stuff we can see to account for the way we see it moving and gravitationally lensing using known physics.

So we're trying to fit any model that might work to explain what we see. One of them is there is more matter that's not seen, call it dark matter, and there has to be a lot of it to explain what we see, if that's the answer. If that's not the answer somebody needs to collect some good evidence to show what the right answer is.



In the models is it true that one main theory is that there is a lot of dark matter near the edge of the galaxy? Or it is thought dark matter is uniform throughout the galaxy? All I was asking there is, if it is thought dark matter is mostly near the edge of the galaxy, which I thought talk of halo and what not is regarding, then I was asking how it is thought that more mass near the edge of the galaxy would maintain its shape?

Add more mass in the center of a lot of bits of matter and we agree the lots of bit of matter will tighten its orbit; add more mass to the edges of the shape of total bits of matter, and I am asking how it is thought such would tighten the edges orbit?

It also might be interesting, helpful, to think of how might a galaxies shape be effected if one removed the central black hole; thought experiment; would the galaxy retain its current structure? Would all the stars continuously separate? Would they remain orbiting long enough and start forming another central black hole? How would the dark matters positioning be effected?



Once again you're getting into questions that will remain unanswered for you personally as long as you have an aversion to mathematics. There's a reason we use math, not because it's hard or to try to make an elitist club of physicists, but because it's useful. If you want to find out how useful it is, put it to work answering your questions.


No. One who knows about this subject should be able to tell me without math, and if math need be, with simple math, the difference between adding mass in the center of a many bodied gravitational system, and adding mass around the edges of a many bodied gravitational system, generally the effect that would have on the shape of the gravitational system.






It seems to work for classical physics like the Earth's rotation. But I don't see how humans could have possibly reasoned out quantum mechanics without relying on observation as the guide. What path of reason would lead you to conclude there should be "spooky action at a distance" as Einstein called it? None that I can see yet it has been experimentally confirmed.


It is not KNOWN if quantum mechanics (what percentage of it) is the perfect mapping of reality it self.

You assume it is; So then when I try to question it, you are offended as if I am questioning reality, and that is when you say; reality doesnt need to fit your reasoning;

And that is when I say, it is not known if your map of reality is the perfect map of reality, and so I question it, and I question it using intelligence, logic, reason etc.

That which I have questioned, I have done so precisely because I was unsure if what was being claimed to be the true map of reality, truly was.

You seem to think you have the true map of reality, and thus are exempt from questioning, are exempt from philosophical reasoning; and in your imagination, you are, but in the history of human kinds endeavors on earth, in front of the strictest judgement of the totality of intelligences; you are not exempt from my questioning your scripture.

Experiment and observation does not always equal comprehension of reality.


Give one or more examples of wrong questioning or reasoning on my part; At least give one example, the worst of my crime, so I can attempt to defend it or admit I was wrong; because if you pick what you think is my most offensive display, and I clearly explain my process and justification of it; then this criticism of yours of me would appear empty. What is one thing, you think I believe, that you think is incorrect.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
In the models is it true that one main theory is that there is a lot of dark matter near the edge of the galaxy? Or it is thought dark matter is uniform throughout the galaxy?

I posted two illustrations of the halo and I wouldn't describe the diagrams in either of those ways, remember these?. It's not "uniform throughout the galaxy" at least for or galaxy because most of the halo is outside the visible part of the milky way. And I wouldn't say it's "near the edge" either because that's simply not what those diagrams show. Of course we don't know the exact distribution but the idea is what's illustrated and your descriptions of those illustrations don't seem to fit the illustrations at all.


It also might be interesting, helpful, to think of how might a galaxies shape be effected if one removed the central black hole; thought experiment; would the galaxy retain its current structure? Would all the stars continuously separate? Would they remain orbiting long enough and start forming another central black hole? How would the dark matters positioning be effected?
We've been mapping the orbits of a collection of stars orbiting close to the black hole in our galaxy. Surely those orbits would cease to exist of the black hole was removed. But the galaxy has billions of stars and if the black hole mass is less than one thousandth of one percent, I'd expect a proportional effect if that much mass was removed. In the galaxy where over 10% of the mass is in the black hole, then removing that black hole would have a much more significant effect than removing the one in the milky way.


One who knows about this subject should be able to tell me without math, and if math need be, with simple math, the difference between adding mass in the center of a many bodied gravitational system, and adding mass around the edges of a many bodied gravitational system, generally the effect that would have on the shape of the gravitational system.
We can say something trivial like adding mass to the center speeds up orbits in the center and adding mass to the edge speeds up orbits near the edge, but neither of those statements are quantitative nor precisely accurate and should be so obcvious as to not need mentioning so I don't know what you expect to gain from such a trivial answer.


It is not KNOWN if quantum mechanics (what percentage of it) is the perfect mapping of reality it self.

You assume it is
No, I don't assume that, in fact the OP says the mapping of QM to reality is unresolved so it seems to me like you don't understand the opening post. Experiments confirm "spooky action at a distance" really happens and you're avoiding the issue that reason without guidance from experiment would never lead to predicting that experimental result.

Exactly how that experimental result maps to reality I can't say but it does happen and reason alone won't lead to that prediction, regardless of how it maps to reality.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
So is it true, as Kryzma is arguing; that particle detectors detect using solely EM radiation; or is there not even a conceivable way to detect anything without using EM radiation?




No it is not true. To detect particles they have to interact with something. There are different types of detection devices like cloud chambers, muon chambers, sometimes you detect particles by looking for missing energy or using dense material to cause a decay event.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi


The only questioning and concern I would have is, well, when theories are built on potential houses of cards, and one minor thing may be off on the layer below it, which may transfer to the next layer, and corrections and adjustments are made on next layers, and pretty soon there may be many layers of theories that fit well together but have minor errors in them, and these errors may build up, and as close and happy as all may be in continually approaching a clearer comprehension of reality, there may be some who freak out at the prospect of potentially not comprehending things perfectly;


exactly !!

look at the history and how all that what they think they know was build up...
Assumption over assumption, guess over guess... approximations as rule
Once a guess becomes a low and made up functions became guideline.
Mathematics is a tool and not reality, they have forgotten it, so mathematics became truth in they eyes, but theory is mathematics only.

If you want to know how it really works, you definitely don't study it at any university, they just repeat theories they don't even sure off, not the reality at all,
That's why they struggle every time the observable doesn't fit the theory, but, instead of rethinking the BS collected over centuries, they try to "correct" the theory adding thing like dark matter and what not...

Just ask any scientist why two charges attract or repeal, and they will tell you all BS about how it works, but none of them will tel you why !!

I need to know why and now how, how... I see every day...

There is a rumor here, I know physics from youtube only... I understand the reluctance against me and I DGAS

truth is, I explained the casimir effect down the posts here, but was ignored.


The Casimir effect is a small attractive force that acts between two close parallel uncharged conducting plates. It is due to quantum vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field. The effect was predicted by the Dutch physicist Hendrick Casimir in 1948


well.. quantum anything has nothing to do with it!
(And I just realized Electric Universe supporter grasped this idea of mine... )

anyway...

I'm waiting for scientists to recognize that proton +1 and electron -1 is not 0 but 2 in field density

a reply to: joelr



Gluons are the messenger for the strong force and they have been detected many times.


how were those detected ?
show me the experiment that detects gluons and I will tell you what's wrong in it !



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
So is it true, as Kryzma is arguing; that particle detectors detect using solely EM radiation; or is there not even a conceivable way to detect anything without using EM radiation?




No it is not true. To detect particles they have to interact with something. There are different types of detection devices like cloud chambers, muon chambers, sometimes you detect particles by looking for missing energy or using dense material to cause a decay event.



you guys don't understand !!

there are just and only two (2) fields (forces) we can manipulate... and the thing is, we can't change one without changing the other.. this is the electric and the magnetic field

gravity... is just a concept

there is no such thing as gluons, higs or dark matter...
those are just theoretical THINGS to get it right in the theory !!

and let me repeat... LHC is not an scientific tool...
to be one you need to be able to repeat the experiments.
LHC experiments can't even count the number of protons they let fly around, it is every time different and it just substantiate what I'm telling you!
LHC is a joke
and so is any BS coming out of it, like particle zoo !!

the theory holds, sure... but it is bound to loss of reality



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi


No. One who knows about this subject should be able to tell me without math, and if math need be, with simple math, the difference between adding mass in the center of a many bodied gravitational system, and adding mass around the edges of a many bodied gravitational system, generally the effect that would have on the shape of the gravitational system.



Each mass distorts space-time and gravitational changes to a many bodied system would require a supercomputer to predict what might happen. Eventually things would fall into stable orbits after all kinds of chaos.
Galaxies collide and it's a big mess, sometimes they continue on their way (but all jumbled up) and sometimes they merge and form a bigger galaxy.

It also depends on how much mass. If you put a much larger sun in the center of our solar system each planet would change its orbit, some might fall in, maybe one would slingshot into deep space.
Put a large sun on the outskirt of our solar system it will completely change everything.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma

how were those detected ?
show me the experiment that detects gluons and I will tell you what's wrong in it !


Gluons are detected in the 3-jet event but there are many other confirmations of gluons and quantum chromodynamics from data collected that exactly agrees with QCD.

Unlike a photon you cannot have a free gluon.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 255  256  257    259  260  261 >>

log in

join