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: 274
74
<< 271  272  273    275  276  277 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

I guess you've passed the initial audition. I dunno you shred? we need a sweet shredder for the solo sections. I'm talking straight sweep picking arpeggios the entire time! I plan to double thumb over everything. Now all we need is a drummer who can maintain 190BPM on the double bass pedal. ...oh, and a cow bell....we gotta have more cow bell.

Id say we should do a physics rap battle but Sir Issac Newton, Bill Nye and Neil Degrass Tyson already beat us too it.

www.youtube.com...

Maybe we can cover some oldies but goodies like CERNing Safari. Lets go CERNing now, Everybody's CERNing now Come on and Safari with meeeeeeeee! Lets go CERNing on a Boson Safari!




edit on 30-3-2016 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Shred? More of a weird chord and strange timing kind of guy now! But I get a kick playing some Randy Rhoads for people (Revelations Mother Earth ending). Throw in some SRV stuff for fun. I could shred but am evolving into "song writer" stage now.

But if you are killing it on bass why muck up the frequencies with more "whirrrrrr"? I think the weird chord voicing would be perfect with swept arpeggios!

Wonder if physics has anything to say about loud music where everybody is soloing at the same time?

iHe's alive! He's dead!
I am a Schrodinger, killing a Persian



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



originally posted by: greenreflections
Yes, comes in packets, quantized.

All I know is that GR cannot be quantized.
GR makes predictions of a small particle as if the position and momentum of the particle can be simultaneously known, and we already know this to not be true from quantum mechanics, so we need a better theory which will be harmonious with quantum mechanics. Easier said than done.


My question is exactly why does science need to unite GR(SR) with QM? These are completely different things. They are 'made' of unrelated stuff and meaningless to be united. That's why it will fail.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel


QM is not intuitive, and if you think you have an intuitive understanding, you're probably making a mistake or being naive or forgetting something!)


QM is intuitive it's just us not smart enough to see it. As of right now because of being incomplete and not fully understood, it seems like it is not intuitive.

Everything alive is made of this very same stuff. Live is driven by tapping into environment intuitively as our sub consciousness and rules of evolution tell us for survival. I think we should listen to our intuition. QM at times sounds like a la-la land where everything is upside down and can only be demonstrated by math not by simple words. Pretty soon there will be nothing to say about it in words but only in formulas.

IMHO, of course. Cheers)



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
My question is exactly why does science need to unite GR(SR) with QM? These are completely different things. They are 'made' of unrelated stuff and meaningless to be united. That's why it will fail.
I'm not sure if "unite" is the right description since one theory or the other might need to change.

The current models for GR and QM don't tell us what goes on inside a black hole, so that's at least one reason we need a better model. If you try to use GR you end up dividing by zero when calculating the density of the singularity, (which is undefined, and doesn't tell you anything) and gravity isn't part of the standard model, so the standard model can't tell you what goes on inside a black hole either.


originally posted by: greenreflections
QM is intuitive it's just us not smart enough to see it. As of right now because of being incomplete and not fully understood, it seems like it is not intuitive.
That's putting the cart before the horse, isn't it? You're speculating that someday we will understand QM better and then maybe it will seem intuitive. We don't know what the impact of understanding QM better will be until we understand it better. For all I know the increased understanding could be even less intuitive, though it could go either way.


originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

You're a guitar player! right on. And, I already know you have good taste in music....hmmmm...so we got a bass player, a guitarist. Any other members in this thread play anything. We need a drummer maybe a second guitarist or keyboardist.
I was the back-up keyboardist for a rock band when I was in high school but I wasn't very good at that. In college I earned some extra money playing trumpet for the background of television commercials, which I was good at. It was boring music, but I needed the money. I played in a jazz band which was a lot more fun but I didn't get paid for that, and when the course work started getting really hard I had to spend more time studying and cut back on musical endeavors.

edit on 2016330 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The current models for GR and QM don't tell us what goes on inside a black hole, so that's at least one reason we need a better model. If you try to use GR you end up dividing by zero when calculating the density of the singularity


Better model)) You mean better model where GR and QM meet (common ground for a cause) then no need look for anything unifying, dependencies and correlation between the two is good enough and hence no real union is needed, just correlation laws.

The fact that we granulate energy in quanta only says that our detectors can't detect energy in anything other but quantas (portions) values. That's how detectors built. Nothing wrong with that. But immidiate assumption that cosmos is operating in quanta is only half of the story.








edit on 30-3-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-3-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
Better model)) You mean better model where GR and QM meet (common ground for a cause) then no need look for anything unifying, dependencies and correlation between the two is good enough and hence no real union is needed, just correlation laws.
I specifically said black hole and you failed to address that. How are you going to make predictions about a black hole? General relativity breaks down and becomes undefined, and there is no gravity in the standard model so I don't know how you can make "correlation laws" with gravity in the standard model when the standard model doesn't include gravity.


The fact that we granulate energy in quanta only says that our detectors can't detect energy in anything other but quantas (portions) values. That's how detectors built. Nothing wrong with that.

That's not a good description of the situation. the ultraviolet catastrophe didn't occur because of detectors measuring quanta, it occurred because theoretical models which didn't assume quanta couldn't predict observed frequencies of radiation. It was the assumption of the existence of quanta which solved this theoretical problem, without having to use detectors to measure the quanta, though that was done too, but you can't pin it on detectors.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Me? Played bass in our campus jazz band! As a guitarist I did not give it enough respect at the time but I wished I learned more about walking a good bass line. And same here, studies became more intense so something had to go
Can't do Joe Pass while trying to figure out 3rd order recursion formulas using Taylor Series polynomial substitutions (one of 3 people in class to correctly solve that one on the final--yeah!). So math is more my thing but I just grok electricity, standard model, etc. My issue was with Newtonian physics because it just seemed like a bunch of word problems but with diagrams!

I also have a proposed name for the ATS Physics House Band: Chaos Theory!

And one more, what the heck!

See me ride out of the hadron
From the ion accelerator beam
A gluon-quark plasma
The Higgs boson, you know what I mean?

Because I’m L- H- C-
I’m dynamite
L- H- C-
I’ll split the light
L- H- C-
Tetra power load
L- H- C-
Watch me explode!



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 05:17 AM
link   
Hi.

I would like to plot a simple graph between these two points.

(230,398)(137,253)

I'm using a mouse recording program and would like to do some manipulation with this.

So anyway, the first plot is where I mouse click on the screen, the second plot is where my mouse click will end at on the screen.

I'm hoping for some kind of output that would fill in the movement of the mouse in between these two points.

Preferably no more than one pixel movement at a time so the mouse looks very smooth when going from the initial position to the last.

Oh, and please offer any website or application that you have used for solving the generated (x,y) graph list since I'll be needing to plot more of these.

I hope that I'm making some sense on this request.

Kind regards.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
Chaos Theory! That's as good a name as any.

originally posted by: Steffer
I would like to plot a simple graph between these two points.

(230,398)(137,253)
...
I hope that I'm making some sense on this request.
I'm not sure what you're trying to do, and it's not really a physics question so it's a little off topic in this thread.

That pair of X,Y coordinates will give you a line segment, and it sounds like you want to draw that slowly instead of drawing the entire segment at once? Or should I not make the assumption you want a line segment? If you want some other function besides a line you'd have to specify it and you didn't so that's why the default assumption would be a straight line segment.

I do a lot of graphing on either Excel or the free counterpart for that in Open Office, it will plot a line between those two points for you but it does it all at once, not a pixel at a time so that's why I don't understand what you're after. Those applications will also plot non-linear functions but you have to specify the function and again it doesn't plot one pixel at a time.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Hiya Arbitrageur.

Yeah, this was not quite the Physics question, but you guys seems to know every answer thrown your way.

I'm simply looking for some kind of output like:

(230,398)
(229,398)
(229,397)
(228,397)
(227,397)
(227,396)

ect. until it ends up here:

(137,253)

I don't know where to look online for such generated numbers.

If you don't feel like this should be in your thread, I won't respond back again.

Thank you for reading my request though.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Steffer
Hiya Arbitrageur.

Yeah, this was not quite the Physics question, but you guys seems to know every answer thrown your way.

I'm simply looking for some kind of output like:

(230,398)
(229,398)
(229,397)
(228,397)
(227,397)
(227,396)

ect. until it ends up here:

(137,253)

I don't know where to look online for such generated numbers.

If you don't feel like this should be in your thread, I won't respond back again.

Thank you for reading my request though.


Not sure of a program but C++ you simply type in this
if (GetCursorPos(&p))
[
//cursor position now in p.x and p.y
]

Since apparently your wright g a program hope that helps.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

free energy using magnetism - discuss please


if this is your field



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
a reply to: Arbitrageur

free energy using magnetism - discuss please


if this is your field


There isn't any - just as you can't get 'free energy' from gravity. And the reason is, is that it is symmetric, like a spring. Whatever cycle you define, you will end up with a net of zero at the end.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Steffer
Hiya Arbitrageur.

Yeah, this was not quite the Physics question, but you guys seems to know every answer thrown your way.

I'm simply looking for some kind of output like:

(230,398)
(229,398)
(229,397)
(228,397)
(227,397)
(227,396)

ect. until it ends up here:

(137,253)

I don't know where to look online for such generated numbers.

If you don't feel like this should be in your thread, I won't respond back again.

Thank you for reading my request though.
It takes all of 2 minutes to do something like that in Excel.

Line formula is y=mx+b
You can see where I used excel to calculate the slope m and the y-intercept b.
Then I populated the X axis in one number increments, just type in a second number click and drag and it auto-populates.
Put the line formula in the y-field, click and drag that and it auto-populates the y numbers.
Click add graph and it graphs those numbers. This is what you get but I'm still not sure what you're trying to accomplish so I don't know if its what you're looking for.

Of course you can flip the sequence upside-down in Excel like you did but the graph will look the same either way.

This display might be be compressed so I'm not sure how legible this will be, but I think you can download it and display it full size after you download it, then you can read the numbers, or choose "view image" then click to zoom in to full size display, which will then be legible.


originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
a reply to: Arbitrageur

free energy using magnetism - discuss please


if this is your field
Bedlam is right. You tube is full of hoaxes, none of those really work. Often if you find one that looks like it works you can find someone who has made a video duplicating how the hoax was performed.

This might be the other contraption bedlam eluded to, based on gravity instead of magnets and as bedlam said it won't work for the same reason:


Physicist Robert Park said the investors in Blacklight Power have "deep pockets, shallow brains" and that would also apply to the lower but still considerable investment shown above.

Of course anybody can prove me wrong by building one that actually works but it's not going to happen.

Solar energy is about as close to free as you'll get and it's not completely free depending on how you want to use it.

edit on 201641 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Holy carp!

Researchers at the Large Hadron Collider just recently started testing the accelerator for running at the higher energy of 13 TeV, and already they have found new insights into the fundamental structure of the universe. Though four fundamental forces – the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force and gravity – have been well documented and confirmed in experiments over the years, CERN announced today the first unequivocal evidence for the Force. “Very impressive, this result is,” said a diminutive green spokesperson for the laboratory.
...
Though researchers are as yet unsure what exactly causes the Force, students and professors at the laboratory have already started to harness its power. Practical applications so far include long-distance communication, influencing minds, and lifting heavy things out of swamps.

Source: CERN - CERN researchers confirm existence of the Force
Hey, it is April First!


Wonder what they will do for May the Fourth?



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

I say nothings free in this universe. But you can maybe shift or borrow energy over from some place inconsequential to someplace more useful. Or, at least that's how I understand things.

Hey Bedlam, is there anyway to create negative energy?
edit on 1-4-2016 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I have a astrophysics question.

Moonlight.

How much UV does moon light have when measured from the earths surface?

Given Albedo of the moon surface, atmospheric scattering and mean free path in the earths atmosphere there should still be some UV light from the sunlight bouncing off the moon that reaches the earths surface at night right? Not enough to get a tan but still enough to be present.





You know where I 'm going with this right?..........Vampires. They can't even go out at night time the phonies! Or if they can, it's only on the new moon or something. They're like the opposite of werewolves who can only come out during the full moon. Why are those bozos even fighting? They shouldn't even be out at the same time or even running into each other.

Great one more thing I have to dismiss as real. Guess I better throw out my fake teeth, vinyl clothes and stop hiding one side of my face behind my bangs. Should have known better to waste 20 years of my life on that nonsense. My mom was right.

edit on 1-4-2016 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR


...
Great one more thing I have to dismiss as real. Guess I better throw out my fake teeth, vinyl clothes and stop hiding one side of my face behind my bangs. Should have known better to waste 20 years of my life on that nonsense. My mom was right.


And there you have your negative energy!



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Could you please shed light on the Universe - multiverse,
supra-universe(s)? Can it be god is just playing natures'
games? Can it be true that when you comprehend the
universe in the vastness and minuteness with it's
magnificent massive size and curious atomic worlds?


a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF




top topics



 
74
<< 271  272  273    275  276  277 >>

log in

join