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: 283
74
<< 280  281  282    284  285  286 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Why must it curve... well inifinity... no person in their right/left mind in a finite container wants to say time is unlimited up down left or right without a recursion back upon itself that would repeat the same pattern or life all over again in the same way same container when it is an infinite consciousness inhabiting life, so the forms are a blender where the blade turns clockwise due to polarity, reverse that polarity and the blender spins counterclockwise but people attached to polarities fail to achieve balance and repeat the same mistakes... like food clinging to the blade saying yay im the blade look at me muhahaha temporary and short lived but in that instant why dash that happiness? Blade doesnt care... and Ocaam was really Oster but margaritas on a hot day can hit the spot... guess who brought the salt?

What dont look at me Im going to go have a bloody mary... breakfast time for me, hair of the dog is hair of the dog and god I hope dog hair isnt in it. nunana nunnna nunnna cat man cat man... to be honest I love the strip I dont care if I look like hitler.

I guess Hawking wanted to be the flower girl, take this pee brains...




posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Wow, a duhhhhhh........

Mass x

Mass x^2

Mass x^3

Will all accelerate equally when on a treadmill

Such concept is meant by gravity force, which may be different in regards to the other forces and their equal effect on two objects at a distance in space; it is because gravity is a massive net (net...continuously moving net) force.


I used treadmill as an example, because I was not sure if

Mass x, Mass x^2, mass x^3 necessarily accelerates equally when placed in a river... but similar concepts

The real idea has to do with the fact that earth is traveling in multiple ways at once; linear through absolute space time, revolution around milky way super massive black hole, revolution around sun, and rotation;

There is an invisible material field (only detectable thus far by the fact objects fall to earth, and the sun and moon are still at the relatively same distance from earth for a while) which exists throughout;

The earths movements in relation to this material, cause the material to move in various ways (plus, the fact that the material may have its own independent movements to begin with)

Couple these apparent concepts together, and the result is that massive bodies such as sun and planets stay in harmonic proximity, and objects removed from the surface of earth, are forced back by this conglomerate of motive physical facts.



edit on 30-4-2016 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Hmmm seems like if one placed a couple off boobs on a treadmill or moobs in equality such an experiement could be figured out... nude of course might be an accelleration to that triple X youre adding up.

Apparently im in a silly mood and enjoying life hoping that rubs off early so people have a great day...

But lemme finally ask a question of sorts myself...

light bulbs have a state of on and off, and since theres a conservation of energy why musta photon and neutrino be two different things instead of just like the light bulb showing a potientail for the same state of on and off and that they never really accelerate just flip between one state or another on contact based on charge one swap on one swap off... one swap glows one swap doesnt and in a contact with a very energized mass pushing energy through a material... this steady stream of unseen particles glow on making them seen but off neutrino?



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Yes, it is mass & energy which are the cause of gravitation in Einsteinian general relativity. There is a specific quantitative relationship, and this has predicted physical effects which have been verified in high detail with observational evidence. A bunch of other alternative theories have been ruled out.

Scientists do not have any deeper theory or understanding of further mechanisms that tie this phenomenon directly to the properties of the fundamental particle fields in the Standard Model.



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423



did a search but couldn't find anything that explained what he was referring to.
An approach to explain gravity via quantum mechanics.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Phantom423



did a search but couldn't find anything that explained what he was referring to.
An approach to explain gravity via quantum mechanics.
en.wikipedia.org...



Thanks -



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


In my latest electrical experiments, I have found that an almond tree with a steel nail in it 6 feet up, with a steel rod as a ground about 6 feet away, produces 60 ma at about .5 of a volt if the trees are on their own they produce more electricity than if they are close up. The only problem I found is that it wasn't the black wire that acted as the ground it was the red wire. Now does this mean that the electricity is flowing down the tree into the ground? I'm doing a few experiments in telluric currents.



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity


The only problem I found is that it wasn't the black wire that acted as the ground it was the red wire. Now does this mean that the electricity is flowing down the tree into the ground?
If you're talking about the direction of the current, I suppose it does. Unless you got the red an black wires switched.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


No they are in the correct position on the multi meter. But apparently on a small battery the end with the pip is called positive and the flat end that gets the spring is called the negative. but the current flows from the negative end. So the negative is attached to the nail on the tree, and the positive is the earth, so I guess it is running from the tree to the ground.

While we are at it, I made a small voltaic cell in and aluminium tube, with a coil of copper shim, and vinegar as the electrolyte, its putting out 4 volts and 130 ma. any idea how many would be needed to power anything use full? or any ball park figures like it would probably run an led, or a calculator. But trying to get a monopole motor turning with something green.Thanks in advance.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

If your nail and ground spike are not the same alloy, you might be seeing more that you're just making a battery out of the metals and using the tree as an electrolyte.

As far as making batteries out of copper and aluminum and what not, it's not exactly 'green'. The power you're getting out of it is coming from the energy used to refine the metals you're using.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam


The nail and ground spike were the same metal ,plain old mild steel, about a foot down.
True about the battery, but its green enough, you can take the bits out and clean them up. But I always thought the tree thing was interesting , but in the realm of woo until actually trying it out. I think its something like, the old crystal radio set, where the actual power comes from the Ariel and a good ground, where the radio waves are turned into electrical flow. But along with random natural flows, like Tesla figured. I doubt that if their were any natural waves you would be pushing it to pick up a local broadcaster. The old telegraph companies wondered how the heck their batteries lasted so long, I guess it was the lines picking up the energy, and grounding back through the batteries.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
I am wondering how indeed photon when released is acquiring its speed? What serves as propulsion for emitted quanta?

I know it is crazy but the easiest way I can explain it to myself is that photon is not exactly being emitted. It is being pulled out. Pulled out in a way that an atom to maintain its composure uses force. Force in my vocabulary means something is working against uniform environment sort of. By 'emitting' I would visualize an atom to 'give up', fail to hold any further quanta when an atom can no longer keep it due to, say, changed positive core requests.

In a way, photon is being pulled out. No prolusion is needed to explain the instantaneous gaining speed of photon.

If I assume positive to be a 'trap' for negative where it is using force to acquire (borrow) what it needs to stay as a whole then if "positive" for any reason does not able to keep that negative piece, quanta will be shed into negative sea (sucked in).

There is my photon propulsion mechanism))))



(facepalm) Here it comes, the misconception caused by a theory telling an photon is a real thing.


...
Photon is just a name for something, a term used to describe the interaction between charged particles.
There is nothing "leaving" the atom and traveling to another atom.
EM field propagates, nothing travels and certainly nothing made up like "wave point duality" moves between atoms.
You need to understand that Photon is just a name for something that happens. It is a name for something that delivers the information about change in EM field from one charge to another.
Photon is nothing real, it does not travel or move from one atom to another!
Photon is an made up term to explain an interaction physicists have no idea about how it happens.
So they made up something responsible for that behavior and call it a photon.

The speed of the "information exchange" is given by the local EM field density.

So... there is nothing "pulled out" with a "force"
What do you mean by the term force anyway ? like star wars force ?

there is no such thing as force or energy... those are just terms used to describe the observable.
The only thing that exist is the change in distance between charged particles in time.

Yeh yeh... I see people calling.. " but there are not charged particles too... a neutron! "
well... neutron is not charged outside it's "size", but is still a sum of two opposite charges in EM field.
edit on 1-5-2016 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

So like:

Ocean = Em Field

Ocean wave = Photon



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Yes, but without the water particles.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

I will try to explain it on en example.

two charged particles are at distance A
if one moves, A changes.
Change in electric field induces magnetic field.
Magnetic field is the "reconfiguration" of E field and it propagates slower then E
M propagates at C in "vacuum" but E is much faster
Hard to measure but about 6000 to 40000 times faster or maybe even more
I think it depends on E density.

What is E field and B field made of ?
lower dimensions, something we can not really describe.

think of the first dimension as something without anything else but a component we call a charge.
It is everywhere and nowhere. You need at least two of them to have a second dimension, the distance between the first two.
But even this is not enough to make something real, you need a third one to have something like difference between
A and B that is more or less then that between A and C AND B and C

It is a good thing the universe has many many many of them
f
Because the interactions between charged particles is what makes up the universe and all real things.
Photon is not real
EM propagation is



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma

Yes, but without the water particles.


Your post after this one, muddies the water a bit.

But I generally agree, which is why for the past few years I have figured and questioned, what might the em field fundamentally be like, physically. Which is why I started all of theory of physics with the fundamental axiomatic distinction between something (physical something) and nothing (the absence of physical something).


The difficulty is considering the meaning of the density of the em field, if it has no sub components; we can think about the density of the field of ocean, and it has multiples of sub components;

But when we get to fundamental, no subcomponents... and apparently, a fundamental 'thing' that is connected to itself somehow, and exists everywhere... it becomes frustratingly baffling.


It obviously cannot literally exist everywhere, due to the simple fact that electrons, quarks exist... take up the space they take up... so EM field does not take up the space where quarks and electrons their body selves take up;

Same as gravity material...

But does this mean that all possible space not taken up by non EM field/photon/wave/radiation;

Is absolutely taken up by EM field/photon/wave/radiation ?

Do you get that question and its importance?

Make a separate distinction; That which is purely EM itself (EM field)

And that which is purely not EM (quarks, electrons, graviton etc.)

Is it true that every single pico planck length that does not contain quarks, electrons, etc

Contains EM field?



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

We were taught how to use trees for HF radio antennas - had a laminated nomograph thing showing where to put the feeds in for matching for different frequencies. They actually work fairly well, depending on circumstances, and you can't spot them like a tower or a bunch of wires.



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi



The difficulty is considering the meaning of the density of the em field, if it has no sub components; we can think about the density of the field of ocean, and it has multiples of sub components;


one charge has field density of 1.
a second charge has field density of 1.

the "physical" size of an charge does not make E field disappearing inside the charge, it just don't change across the size threshold.
Outside the size threshold is is decreasing with distance.
An electron is there even 2m away from it's charge source, just not so strong as it is at it's size threshold.
The one electron inside the Sun is present here on Earth, just not as strong as it is on it's "origin".

A proton is approximately 2000 time bigger the an electron ( whatever that means for scientists... )
If you calculate the surface for field density and take field density as the "moving force", the electron can not move closer to an proton because of the size difference.
This is why electron is not falling into a proton.

On the other size, if you have protons close enough to each other, the field density is not changing so the protons stay together and don't repeal. There is no such thing as mysterious strong force holding them together.
They close enough to be 1.
Electrons however can not "combine" in an atom, they are "too small"...
They could if there was no protons present or protons were at a very large distance to those electrons.

More than 1 electron atoms do build neutrons so the geometry of the atom can sustain.
Left out neutrons decay...

all is nice and easy if you take density over volume of space over time, not just +1 or -1 and definitely not if you make up an particle zoo



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi



It obviously cannot literally exist everywhere, due to the simple fact that electrons, quarks exist... take up the space they take up... so EM field does not take up the space where quarks and electrons their body selves take up;


quarks exist ??
show me one


as I told you, electrons do not take the space up, they are the EM field



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi


Do you get that question and its importance? Make a separate distinction; That which is purely EM itself (EM field) And that which is purely not EM (quarks, electrons, graviton etc.) Is it true that every single pico planck length that does not contain quarks, electrons, etc Contains EM field?


Yes I do...

EM field IS the electrons and protons
charges are HARD where they are and softer and softer with distance.

moving one charge against another, you change the shape of both of them, this interaction creates B field, B field is the appearance of the shape reconfiguration.

edit on 1-5-2016 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 280  281  282    284  285  286 >>

log in

join