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: 298
74
<< 295  296  297    299  300  301 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

I presume antimass means massless (if mass is resistant, antimass/massless is non resist);

Oh, is it like, the gravity component (water) is the mass, and the vibrations (ripples of water) of that mass is the photon?

What mechanism holds preons together?

What mechanism holds neutron and proton together?

Besides gravity, photon, preon, electron, neutrino (I saw you mention) what else is there?

When the universe was created was x amount of preons created, and has x changed over time?

edit on 3-7-2016 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
What is the proposed mechanism by which a massive object is prevented from ever achieving or exceeding C?
Is it some function of spacetime itself as an underlying structure, exerting some forms of 'drag' on the object? Is it a function of the Higgs Field (which would only account for certain types of massive particles, I guess)? Or is it something entirely different? Maybe localized time dilation due to increased momentum causing the non-localized flow of time to retard the object to ever-slower relative motion within the localization so C cannot be violated? (Yes, the last one was absolutely ridiculous. But if you didn't know that it was ridiculous it might sound awfully impressive. And I didn't even have to say "timey-wimey".)



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
What is the proposed mechanism by which a massive object is prevented from ever achieving or exceeding C?
Is it some function of spacetime itself as an underlying structure,


yes


exerting some forms of 'drag' on the object?


no


Is it a function of the Higgs Field (which would only account for certain types of massive particles, I guess)?


no.


Or is it something entirely different? Maybe localized time dilation due to increased momentum causing the non-localized flow of time to retard the object to ever-slower relative motion within the localization so C cannot be violated? (Yes, the last one was absolutely ridiculous. But if you didn't know that it was ridiculous it might sound awfully impressive. And I didn't even have to say "timey-wimey".)


Actually that's the closest.

It comes out of special relativity---you can add more and more momentum to a particle and yet the velocity doesn't ever go up. And this arises from the Lorentz transformation which itself arises from the need to have invariance under inertial reference frames and still be compatible with the Maxwell equations.

www.mathpages.com...



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Oh, really? Well then...

As it turns out, I can barely wrap.my hard around the concept of the Lorentz Transformation. But I will certainly delve into the link you provided and see what I can make of it.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 03:42 AM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

Well in descriptive geometry, a point is this: . and has the potential or energy or perhaps dimension to be this: ------------------------ of course since matter especially seen in crystalline structures grow out in 3 dimensions uniformly at once like the spheres we see in space in a pretty stable pocket of space with the hexagonal shape typical on such stable formations as with primer field burns on metal domes being the same... of course that means there is a resonance to the structure or field itself like the sand experiments above a speaker... I wonder what would form in a vacuum using the sound resonances we hear in space with a suspension in a colloidal or magnetic field?

Singular and two dimensions actually do not exist at the atomic scale and when we get down to planck level it becomes time itself.

We are on a mass free falling at the same rate as it is, and orbit is no different yet we are not revolving at the same spin as local, just relative with the solar system and the local when in orbit and then galactic and then in interstellar space? What is there it have spin? It would seem that possibly all particulate would move at the speed of light, yet only light remains at that speed as it heads towards a black hole vector possibly being attached to it in string form as the black hole jets since it is a lighter particle it would not be one the same plane of gravity but perhaps float above the gravity filed local to the black holes influence and perhaps any other particle masses it would sort of have to jelly fish through in retracting like a snails eye... so perhaps when the solar body went nova all the particles of escaping light are sucked back into it...

Just tossing out hypothetical to ponder, how it fits into the standard models... I cannot say, but like elastic over a parabola stretches with it, when placed under it instead forms a pocket... or at least tries to even when glued down... this can be seen in nature with the cupping of wood based on the circular ring structure and how it is lay down and then exposed to moisture then dries again... it always cups towards the core... or like electricity follows the path of least resistance even if that means over a larger distance... there is a natural tendency or preference to it's operation.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 03:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
What is the proposed mechanism by which a massive object is prevented from ever achieving or exceeding C?

The observed (kinetic) energy of massive objects at relativistic speeds.

Classic E = m*v^2/2 has no speed limit

Relativistic E = m*c^2*(1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)-1) goes against infinity with v aproaching c

The second equation can be derived using SRT (lorenz transformation).



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: moebius

Thank you. I appreciate your insight. But, as a follow-up to this, what physical mechanism is responsible for the mathematics being (theoretically) true? I understand that on paper, logic dictates that for any particle with mass, C is inviolate. But it would seem to me that there also absolutely must be a physical/quantum mechanism or property of spacetime itself that enforces it.
If I am in a craft travelling at 99.9999% of C, and I have the capability to increase thrust output by 100%, SR dictates that I will still never be able to reach v=C, nor v>C. What system is physically acting upon the craft and myself to transform the potential energy of the thrust into greater mass? How do massive particles gain mass instead of velocity at high relativistic speeds, building towards infinite mass instead of achieving C?
Also, to an observer staying (relatively) motionless at my point of departure, would my craft ever appear to attain v=C? Besides by traversing a great enough distance to have an APPARENT v=C or v>C due to the expansion of spacetime.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi



I presume antimass means massless (if mass is resistant, antimass/massless is non resist);

It means negative mass. When you apply a force in the x direction it accelerates in the minus x direction. If you sum up the mass of equal amounts of the two components, which generally overlap, you get zero.



What mechanism holds preons together?

A neutrinic force - a force carred by the neutrino. The C preon has a neutrinic charge of plus 3, the A and B have neutrinic charges of -1. The anti-C has a neutrinic charge of -3, and the anti-A and anti-B each have a neutrinic charge of +1. All normal matter are combinations of preons that have a net zero neutrinic charge.



What mechanism holds neutron and proton together?

I haven't worked this out. My guess is it is a sort of van der Waals attraction.



Besides gravity, photon, preon, electron, neutrino (I saw you mention) what else is there?

The world is made up of A, B, C, anti-A, anti-B, anti-C, neutrinos, photons and possibly gravitons. That's it.



When the universe was created was x amount of preons created, and has x changed over time?

The universe is pretty big. Who knows what goes on elsewhere. But locally preons can be created in particle-antiparticle pairs if you supply enough energy. They don't just pop into and out of existence without that.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness
Thanks for the comments. I read them, but must admit that I don't believe I've followed them well.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: delbertlarson


It means negative mass. When you apply a force in the x direction it accelerates in the minus x direction. If you sum up the mass of equal amounts of the two components, which generally overlap, you get zero.


I am trying to think of any comprehendible hypothetical example of applying a force on an object and having it accelerate in the opposite direction;

The concept of; if you were to throw a ball at a pond of water at a particular angle/direction there would be water accelerating toward you; and the concept of hitting a cue ball with backspin comes to mind.


x quantity of water exists in a still pond (y mass);

a stone is touched to the surface of the pond and removed; x quantity of water exists in a rippling pond (y mass);

Are the ripples negative mass, are the ripples massless propagations of energy?

The concept of massless/negative mass; is that the system has an unavoidable recoil/propagation/motion;

When the stone is touched to the surface of the pond, (without freezing the pond) how can you stop the ripples?

The transfer of energy through the medium is a result of the nature of the medium;

Its not really, negative mass, so much as it is a united substance, which cannot avoid transferring an energetic disturbance away from the point of initiation; because of the way in which a medium of water is united, it cannot help but pass the introduction of energy throughout the system, in the form of wave; it requires no mass of the system being added (though, the mass of the stone...the mass of the charged particle is necessary);

Seems the same for your aether, - mass theory; when the medium is disturbed, the disturbance does not result as if it were a disconnected normal object being forced in a direction, an object being placed in motion and remaining in motion; unless it is that any attempt to push the object in a forward direction, results in the loosening of it, which makes it fall toward you; (which may have something to do with the motions of earth)... /ramble







A neutrinic force - a force carred by the neutrino. The C preon has a neutrinic charge of plus 3, the A and B have neutrinic charges of -1. The anti-C has a neutrinic charge of -3, and the anti-A and anti-B each have a neutrinic charge of +1. All normal matter are combinations of preons that have a net zero neutrinic charge.


What is the physical mechanism; of binding? How physically, are separate things bound? I can take two clumps of clay and mash mix them together and bind them; what is the 'neutrino' and neutrinic force, that it has the physical capabilities of (drawing together? and/or just) holding together two separate things?





'What mechanism holds neutron and proton together?' - me

I haven't worked this out. My guess is it is a sort of van der Waals attraction.


Thats ok; your drive and theories and practices if accurate are very great and much more important and useful than simply understanding and knowing every possible theoretical detail of reality. Though perhaps understanding could further benefit your theories and creatons.






The world is made up of A, B, C, anti-A, anti-B, anti-C, neutrinos, photons and possibly gravitons. That's it.


I dont know about the terminology, I believe some physical substance must be responsible for keeping the planets around the sun; so I use graviton to depict the unit of that substance; so if you agree that the planets stay around the sun and all those things you listed (besides graviton) could not on their own explain such; it would seem you would require some gravity medium unit, and if the term gravitons was invented and potentially imperfectly defined and used by those you disagree with, I understand why you say 'possibly gravitons'; but if you are using it in the sense that I just mentioned I use it, short hand, proverbially, then yes I understand.

What is the need for anti matter? Is that just the idea of real intrinsic spin? That gets really into the geary machinary of reality; that everything spins together and that spin effects the mediums potentially, but if something is made to go against the grain of local spin, that quanta cannot be used as normal matter in relation to all local matter which share the necessary attributes to be bound in conglomerations; is the concept of anti matter something like that? Mainly to do with real intrinsic spin? And quantum spin is not angular momentum, but has to do with how quantum objects are not necessarily isomorphic, but if in their environment they are rotated, they have different properties in relation to their surroundings and interactions with incoming objects? Are those the main two factors of anti matter? Or are you going to say anti, - mass, is another factor? Any more?

And it seems, you do away with w, z, gluon, and just say, neutrino substance/medium performs the duties of them?



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

eh just conceptual links on a ladder, no reason to climb around on the monkey bars if you don't want too.




posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

It would seem that the air turbulance is transfered to the water as the stone skips across the surface... and well when it sinks theres displacement, and when it skips it slides of of a pocket of air that forms on contact or why flatter stones are best. But throught the air the turbulance becomes a shock wave and when the bow shock strikes the waves transfer the energy from arm, to rock, to water.

A cue ball actually slides until it makes contact and then like newtons cradle hits and then the friction is applied of that spin and energy transfers on that initial contact... when playing a little more serious and focused I imagine the cue ball as the table surface and hit it where I want it to be, of course deflection of the force angle on contact and rails and other objects in the way are a variable into it getting there plus the spin acts like a gearing and turns opposite of applied spin with each contact that spin also becomes opposite... the perfect straight on break the cue ball hit dead center and the head ball dead center the force of the 15 balls raises the cue ball straight up of the table and drops dead in the water where it contacted... atom smashing as those two points are about the size of the head of a pin round on round contact.

I know you were replying to someone but I'm one of those sorts that really enjoys observing the nature of contact and its physics of interaction in the chain or causation of things... not really the maths sort just many of the micro and macro mechanics translate in many repeating patterns of operation.

Antimatter in my opinion? Forget about it and it ceases to matter.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Any thoughts on how the meaning of this can be physically possible?

"When you apply a force in the x direction it accelerates in the minus x direction."


1) (forceful object traveling toward x) ------------------> x (= position of x)

2) (after forceful object forcefully forces x) x ----------->

3) x



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Sans the math of X... it's the same a the draw shot or cue ball taking on back spin... it comes back from a place it has already been once friction is applied after contact... at first it is like the suface is hydrophobic and a drop slides along and on contact or bump it sees friction and slides back the way it came using the same energy as inertia to return the way it came... of course if it isn't perfectly aligned the vector will slide off course and have to overcome drag as it is not the same vector just a deflection...

Aside from billiards, the same often occurs in relationships involving an X that got an E in their effort to make it an Ex. no explaination needed.

But names and situations of the people aside... it's easier for someone to return to what they know or roll backwards than it is to progress forward without an aim or momentum to do so... all the vectors are intention, yet particles being intentionless there is an affinity of action(polarity) and of course matter is simply being. Whether those vectors come with a memory or a string of attachment to play tricks with like a yoyo to recoil, sit and spin, or be yanked back is not really of any importance when just simply observing.

At some point in observation though all such senarios are seen, and one sort of becomes an object therapist to all of this subjectivity.

If you can or cannot see how this relates, then my apologies but experience can eventually seem like a futility, when sitting on the edge of a black hole event, of course vectors change and in freefall there's just time itself or simply being.
edit on 7-7-2016 by BigBrotherDarkness because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I did not read all the pages, maybe question was asked already, but here we go.
On greater scale: whats the possibilities that intellegent spiecies from other side of the universe were able to detect our "planet", however they saw us as a photon and calculated that our travelling speed relevent to their position is same as a speed of light, or even greater. So they call a symposium of their greatest minds and come with the conclusion that we are them, or they are us, either from the future ir the past?
Or why our planet cannot be a photon emitted by something bigger that we unable to comprehend yet. We are not that big, we just a small particle on the greater scale of understanding Mazda?
Hopefully i was not sound insane



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: boomstick88
I did not read all the pages, maybe question was asked already, but here we go.
On greater scale: whats the possibilities that intellegent spiecies from other side of the universe were able to detect our "planet", however they saw us as a photon and calculated that our travelling speed relevent to their position is same as a speed of light, or even greater. So they call a symposium of their greatest minds and come with the conclusion that we are them, or they are us, either from the future ir the past?
Or why our planet cannot be a photon emitted by something bigger that we unable to comprehend yet. We are not that big, we just a small particle on the greater scale of understanding Mazda?
Hopefully i was not sound insane
The first paragraph poses a rational question, but the second part exhibits a malady I call "dictionary abuse".

The measurements we've made tend to suggest the universe is "flat" rather than "curved" (implying the universe might be infinite). However there are limits to the accuracy of our measurements such that if the curvature of the universe is only very very slight, we might not detect it. So assuming that's the case, is it still possible? If this research is correct, the curvature is probably too small for that:

The Total Universe flat and is at least 251 times larger than the visible universe
I'm not sure all researchers would agree with those conclusions, but I think almost all if not all agree that measurements show the universe to be "flat".

The reason I say "why our planet cannot be a photon" is a form of dictionary abuse is that words have meanings, and "photon" has a very specific meaning as a quantum of electromagnetic energy with specific properties, one of which is that it's massless and the Earth of course is not massless.

The idea of a distant observer seeing photons that the sun reflects off the Earth is not implausible, but those observers if very distant may have difficulty discerning the dim Earth with relatively few photons versus the much brighter sun emitting many photons. I'm reminded of the "pale blue dot" image of the Earth, taken in our own solar system, where if someone didn't tell me "this is the earth right here", I wouldn't know it, and that's only light hours away. Can you even see the Earth in this "pale blue dot" image without someone pointing it out to you?

A Pale Blue Dot


Since that's only about 6 light-hours away, seeing Earth from light years away or billions of light years away seems next to impossible though I'm often reminded alien civilizations may have technology far in advance of ours, so I don't rule it out.


edit on 201677 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   

edit on 7-7-2016 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I have a question..

How big is the vacuum in outer space..? And why is our atmosphere not sucked away into space from our planet by this vacuum.

Thx.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I have a question..

How big is the vacuum in outer space..?
That depends a little on how you define "vacuum". For example the moon has a very very tiny "atmosphere" which is a better vacuum than the best vacuum we can make on Earth. So is the moon's atmosphere a "vacuum"? All space is thought to have probably at least 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter, so it's not truly empty but we call it a vacuum. The best vacuum on Earth, maybe 1 trillionth of atmospheric pressure, has maybe 100 million atoms per cubic meter. So it becomes a relative term.

If space is infinite, so is the vacuum. All we can say for sure is it's at least as big as the observable universe, after you subtract out the space taken up by "stuff" depending on how you define the vacuum, and depending on what dark matter really is. If a given space in a galactic halo is full of "dark matter", is that a "vacuum"? Anyway the universe is mostly space so if space is a vacuum there's a heck of a lot of it.


And why is our atmosphere not sucked away into space from our planet by this vacuum.
Who says it's not? Some of it does leave the Earth and goes into space, particularly hydrogen of which we lose about 3000 grams a second, which is why our atmosphere has such a low hydrogen content, only about half of one part per million. The gas giants have a lot more gravity than Earth so with their higher escape velocities even hydrogen has difficulty escaping and they have a lot higher percentage of gaseous hydrogen than Earth.

The reason hydrogen is so vulnerable to escape is that because hydrogen atoms have lower mass than other gas molecules, they tend to have higher velocities all else being equal and as a result they would tend to be the first to reach escape velocity which happens to only a small percentage of the most energetic molecules. The rest of the hydrogen molecules, and the rest of the molecules heavier than helium tend to not reach Earth's escape velocity, which is just gravitational physics combined with the statistical distribution of populations of gas molecule energies. There are some other more complicated effects at work too but if you want to learn about those, read the following article:

The Planetary Air Leak - As Earth’s atmosphere slowly trickles away into space, will our planet come to look like Venus?


Many of the gases that make up Earth’s atmosphere and those of the other planets are slowly leaking into space. Hot gases, especially light ones, evaporate away; chemical reactions and particle collisions eject atoms and molecules; and asteroids and comets occasionally blast out chunks of atmosphere.
I would quibble with the word "evaporate" there, but yes it's correct that a small amount of hydrogen and even less helium gas escapes the Earth every second. The amount is inconsequential on human time scales but can be significant over geologic time scales as explained in the article.

edit on 201677 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur
So speed of light or any speed from that point only relevent to something that we are compering to. Argument still valid, that we very well could be travelling with the speed of light, constantly? But according to the relativity only light/photons can travel with that speed?
Thanks
edit on 7-7-2016 by boomstick88 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
74
<< 295  296  297    299  300  301 >>

log in

join