It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I'm not seeing how the OM symbol proves anything. I see the topic "frequency patterns" come up quite a bit in crank literature but I never understand what it means because it's usually not explained very well as is the case in your post. I've observed frequency patterns such as a correlation between photon energy and frequency, and a correlation between the amount of liquids I drink and the frequency of my toilet flushes, but in prior "ages" as I would use that term neither photons not water closets were known so I don't see how these these frequency patterns could have been understood for unknown objects in prior ages.
originally posted by: EnkiEa
And Arbitrageur I gave you proof! The OM symbol for a start. And the frequency patterns.
This information is RE-PROVIDED to this world every 'age'', and every time ... they manage to f#$k it all up!
The "other universes" claim is speculative and I'm not aware of evidence to support it but most if not all of the other items which you choose to deny because they seem unbelievable to you have experimental evidence backing them up. Physicists are aware of the reluctance of some people to accept things they're not comfortable with, which is why Richard Feynman addressed this issue in one of his lectures. Of course he wasn't speaking to you personally but his message certainly seems applicable in your case:
originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
Let's make a list of BS that science has come up with.
• Things traveling magically through space
• Time travel
• Time speeding up and slowing down
• Other dimensions that allow access to new physics
• Things existing in more than one place at the same time.
• More than one thing existing in the same place at the same time
• other universes that can be accessed by unsolved problems in phsics...
• Distances being reduced because the universe magically warps itself to do so
The odd thing is you didn't even list the "crazier" stuff Feynman talks about. What's even more odd is all this denial of time travel from someone who has a time-traveling science fiction spaceship as their avatar.
"And then there's the ... kind of thing which you don't understand. Meaning "I don't believe it, it's too crazy, it's the kind of thing I'm not going to accept."
Eh. The other part well... this kind, I hope you'll come along with me and you'll have to accept it because it's the way nature works. If you want to know the way nature works, we looked at it, carefully, [Look at it] that's the way it looks.
You don't like it..., go somewhere else!
To another universe! Where the rules are simpler, philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy. I can't help it! OK! If I'm going to tell you honestly what the world looks like to the... human beings who have struggled as hard as they can to understand it, I can only tell you what it looks like.
And I cannot make it any simpler, I'm not going to do this, I'm not going to simplify it, and I'm not going to fake it. I'm not going to tell you it's something like a ball bearing inside a spring, it isn't.
So I'm going to tell you what it really is like, and if you don't like it, that's too bad."
What was your question? Anyway when you become one of the "human beings who have struggled as hard as they can to understand" the world, then you'll be in a better position to explain where physicists went wrong, but until then it's apparent you haven't struggled very hard to understand why physicists think what they think whether it's wrong or right. What they need is for someone to explain what is wrong and what instead is right and then they can change their point of view. It happened in 1998 in cosmology in a dramatic way and can happen again the same way if someone has good evidence to convince them otherwise, but there's really no substance in your post to convince them otherwise.
But hey, I'm no physicist (yet). What do I know? I'm just choosing to open my eyes rather than accept what I'm told.
As Phage suggested, "dull" is not well defined in your question. If you want me to take a guess at my interpretation of "dull", it would be that there are other frequencies mixed in with the yellow so it's not pure yellow, while pure monochromatic yellow in a narrow frequency band is fairly bright looking to me.
originally posted by: Nochzwei
a dull yellow painting vs a bright yellow painting. which one reflects a higher freq light?
A potential portal to other universes seems to have closed. The sharpest map yet made of light from the infant universe shows no evidence of dark flow–a stream of galaxy clusters rushing in the same direction that hinted at the existence of a multiverse.
That is the conclusion of 175 scientists working with data from the Planck spacecraft. But champions of dark flow are not ready to give up yet, including one Planck scientist who says his team's analysis is flawed.
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: EnkiEa
a reply to: Bedlam
The Barium isn't peptide, so there is no way for it to form the soluble aqueous transit state required for this to be true.
Barium is never a peptide, since a peptide is a sequence of amino acids. You've got My Big Book O' Chemical Terms you're randomly pulling from, right?
there should be a range of wavelengths rather than one discreet wavelength. so in the spectrum the yellow band goes from bright to dull yellow eventually becoming orange
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nochzwei
What do you mean by the terms dull and bright?
Please define the wavelength of the color "yellow."
In any case, the painting in which the "yellow" is more toward the blue end of the visible spectrum (greenier rather than orangier) would be reflecting light of a higher frequency.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: IAmTheRumble
The bottom line question is, if we need to look at something differently, what is it, and how do we do that? There's a physicist who said we have modern day "epicycles" in particle physics. Maybe so, but where is the better theory or model that takes out the epicycles? If that can't be delivered, even if epicycles weren't physically correct, at least they could make predictions, and so can our modern models even if they may not be perfect. Most scientists aren't going to throw out our current models that make good predictions unless they have a better model to replace it, and in 1998 they got new data and revised their cosmological model significantly as a result. If we get more new data which revises our views the models can certainly change again to accommodate the new data. That's the way science works.
No, it wasn't you. There was a post just over a year ago in this thread of a video with no comments (which violates the site terms and conditions) but I watched it anyway. It was by Alexander Unzicker, and I'll give a brief description of the video that was lacking in the original post.
originally posted by: delbertlarson
On a later post I see you mention that some physicist claimed that the standard model are the new epicycles. Was that me?
No I haven't looked at it yet. I may do that, but frankly since I don't work at CERN I'm not the person you need to persuade; The CERN folks are the ones running the experiments. So how do these firm predictions of your model compare to experiment? Can they be compared to the data CERN made available to the public recently? Speaking of that, Unzicker comments on the size of the datasets in the above video (in general, not speaking of the latest public release of data). I'm thinking of getting a bigger hard drive to be able to look at the CERN data, the datasets really are quite large. Unzicker talks about needing a stack of hard drives as tall as a mountain, well they aren't quite that large, at least not the datasets made available to the public.
I know that I have indeed made that claim, and I will stick by it. For the better way you seek, I have proposed the ABC Preon Model - have you looked at it yet? It is much simpler, dovetails with the standard model in its limit, yet makes firm predictions for physics beyond the standard model.
Yes that very thought also occurred to me when I commented that "dull" wasn't well-defined.
originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Then, too, since we're talking about dry paint, 'bright' and 'dull' could be descriptions of the surface smoothness - matte or gloss, as it were, and not a matter of colorimetry at all.
You can't rotate ordinary matter as we know it nearly that fast. What will happen as you speed up the rotation is it will have a tendency to fly apart long before the tangential velocity at the surface gets anywhere near 1/5 the speed of light.
originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
If you took a large enough ferromagnetic iron ball into space and rotated it at near the speed of light(1/5 the speed of light) how would it deform the space around it as the rotation of the iron ball increases.
PSR J1748-2446ad is the fastest-spinning pulsar known, at 716 Hz, or slightly more than 700 times a second...
It has been calculated that the neutron star contains slightly less than two times the mass of the Sun, within the typical range of neutron stars. Its radius is constrained to be less than 16 km. At its equator it is spinning at approximately 24% of the speed of light, or over 70,000 km per second.
They don't have to be giant plates, you'll get about the same voltage per cell regardless of the size of the plate but if you want more current then you'd need larger plates. This is a patent from 1969 using seawater as the electrolyte in a simple electrolytic battery. The aluminum version generates about 1.5 volts per cell so in this application to power the 12V electrical systems of buoys you'd need 8 cells in series:
Oh and can you use seawater as a electrolytic battery with two unlike giant conductive plates in the ocean spaced close together with a small amount of moving sea water through the two conductive plates. Will this do anything?
since I don't work at CERN I'm not the person you need to persuade; The CERN folks are the ones running the experiments. So how do these firm predictions of your model compare to experiment?