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: 324
72
<< 321  322  323    325  326  327 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanielKoenig
Total ignorance of the simple to understand necessary existent physical framework I detailed.
I understood your point about the Earth moving completely and the fact that it seems logical is reinforced by the fact that most people believed that's how it worked prior to Einstein. But Einstein (or was it Lorentz according to delbertlarson?) suggested that logical idea is not how nature really works and of course like any new ideas his ideas were met with skepticism, tested, and experiments found that 2+2 does not equal 4 like everybody used to think, at least if you're walking 2mph on a train moving 2mph, which is relevant to your moving Earth example.

The true sum of 2mph plus 2mph according to relativity is revealed in this video starting at about the 1 minute mark, so don't feel bad if you thought the answer was 4 mph, that's a common misconception in physics which is implied by your point about the Earth's motion which infers a similar misconception related to not understanding the fundamentals of relativity:

Common Physics Misconceptions




posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433

Please point out the framework as so far all iv seen in your posts are general claims that everything people have been doing for the last... 60 or so years is 'garbage' without anything to suggest you know at all what you are talking about...



Please point out where I said:


your posts are general claims that everything people have been doing for the last... 60 or so years


Did I say everything? I specifically said: The concept of higgs field is a reach, an invention of the imagination, not necessarily existent. It is the absolute bottom of the barrel, last thing a person should consider is possible, you guys love occams razor, this is the time to use it:

Particles can intrinsically have mass.

Our very complicated, sophisticated, multi faceted, equations suggest something is off about the electrons mass.

If we imagine, if we pretend, there exists an invisible 'field' of 'mass' that gives the electron the exact amount of mass needed to make the equation work, then the electron will have the exact amount of mass needed for the equation to work.

Fire up those beams boys. How many electrons are we sending around? At what energy? Can we plug the electrons mass in before hand, the mass we are uncertain of? How many collided that time? How many collided that time? Oh look at those squiggly lines with those energy signatures, that particular one proves that there is an invisible field of mass, that makes the electron, which intrinsically is 0 mass......... have mass. Photon has 0 mass. nothing can give it mass. photon has a funky bizarre mode of propagation.. its not just like a marble or something,
electron is, not propagated like a photon, an electron is more like a marble than a photon, in its propagation, but there is this mass field, that all electrons in the universe, are constantly touching, and this touching makes the 0 mass electron, have mass.

The higgs field is a joke, a disgrace, as I have said, if the universe is fake...yeah, sure, anything goes, who knows how God designed the program and computer. But if its real, there are some concepts which are eternally impossible.

It simply is a disgusting joke of an idea. It is not truth. The electron fundamentally intrinsically has mass. Tell me exactly what about the equation does not work when it is considered the electron fundamentally has mass, and I will fix it for you.




You do not appear to actually understand anything about the standard model and yet feel totally comfortable claiming that theoretical particle physics is completely wrong.


Again, never said completely, I am only interested in what could possibly be wrong about it though. I focus on what can be wrong, in order to attempt to think about what is right. True, False. Reality is true. Mans understanding of reality can be false. Man can think mans understanding of reality is true, about that man can be false. The higgs field is dumb.



Sorry if it seems ignorant of me to not to go searching through your massively rambling posts, but, given the level of "I am right because... because... and everyone else is a fraud/idiot" you have done, ill just let you point it out to me exactly where this theory is and what it entails... because id be quite astounded if a simple page of ramblings can replace thousands of pages of theory backed up by petabytes of experimental data.


You werent interested in my accurate intriguing perception of the true nature of how gravity is able to occur?

Rough estimate, how much MASS, MUST BE SPACE, in order for the solar system to remain a system. Why do you ignore this interesting fact? People look at the black of space and say "nothing", "vacuum", "empty".

BUT, it must be FULL OF MASS, it must be. In between the sun and all the planets must be, enough mass, such that planets are able to remain in their revolution, arc.

You talk about invisible fields all the time, thats a real invisible field, of actual stuff. How much of that mass is the higgs field?

It is said gravity works because space bends/curves. Nothing cannot bend. Something needs to exist for 'bending' to be possible.

How heavy are the planets?

How heavy does space need to be in order to maintain the proximity of the planets?

Do you understand these questions? If you have a massive boulder, and you have a "slide made of fabric" in some arc suspended from a later, and you want to push the big boulder off the ladder so it slides down the fabric slide and lands 1000 feet away from the ladders base, that fabric must be 'strong and taught'.

Now instead of a big boulder imagine the Earth, and well, throw in all the other planets too. There must be a heavy, strong, taught 'fabric' that keeps the planets riding on their arc.

In the boulder scenario, if the fabric is not strong and taught enough, the path of least resistance will be quickly straight down and tear through.

If 'space' is not heavy, strong, and taught enough, the planets would have immediately 'flung off' away from the sun as they attempted to arc/revolve around it.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

No, I was not talking about that. You misconceived my entire point.

My point is: If the EM field exists independent of earth

And Earth is always moving through space/em field X mph

How can the actual velocity of light be known?

I guess your point might be: when light is generated on earth its not measured as the speed of light exactly because it 'twists and turns through matter', or absorbed and emitted makes the measurement a not pure A to B

In that sense matter is like a maze. You have a mass with a Start and Finish, and twists and turns. You can take a pen and go straight A to B Start to finish completely ignoring the walls. But in Matter, light cannot completely ignore the walls right?

Light has to go with the flow of the maze. (some forms of light is 'small enough' to pass through certain mazes of matter)

My point is that, all our measurements are done, while the Earth is moving X mph in relation to 'space' in relation to 'em field'. The EM field does not exist as an object on earth. Earth continuously is moving through the em field.

When light is created on Earth, the split second it is created, How much has the Earth moved through space, through the EM field?

This is something of, dragging. If right when you take your pen and draw the smallest line to begin the maze, someone takes the paper and moves it 100000 mph towards you... thats my point.

I suppose the real thing I have to take out of this, is there is no all encompassing em field. There are only separate photons. All the light, all the possible photons on Earth came from the sun (or other distance stars).

The sun tosses photons at earth, and different molecular materials, can capture these photons, and then they can be remitted.

So when the photon is captured on earth, it is traveling along with all other things on earth, at earth through space speed, so all the photons captured on earth, are in earths reference frame, so when any of these are let go, again I go to the famous, ball out of the car window.

A high way is space. A car is Earth. A brick is tied on the gas pedal so the car continuously travels 100 mph.

(the car is a convertible)

There is a jet plane that circles over head, and about half the time ; ) it is close enough it drops a load of bouncy balls into the car, and then circles away, and then comes back and drops bouncy balls into the car, and then circles, revolves away

All I am trying to say is, how do we know our measurement of the speed of our tossing the balls, doesnt have to do with the speed the car is traveling?


Photons are not like any other object we know of, in their theorized mode of propagation.

Ok back to the car example, the plane drops different types of balls into the car.

Some of this stuff dropped into the car, only travels as fast as you can throw it, like rocks and rain and stuff on earth.

But its thought some of the parts that make up rocks and rain, if separated enough, if you just 'touch it' or something, 'flys' away at very fast speed?

One of these types of balls, if you let it out of your hand travels very fast.


Why do you think the measured speed of light has nothing to do with the earths movement? Why do you think the measurement of the speed of the ball has nothing to do with the cars movement?

Someone on the side of the road with a radar gun, locked in on the balls speed, the movement of the car would register the balls speed right?

Funnily enough radar guns require and use light

If there was a car traveling 100mph next to this car, radar gun locked in only on the ball, would it measure the same speed? as if the person with the radar gun standing still on the side of the road?

If someone got out of earth, and tried to stand still with their radar gun pointed at earth, eventually the earth would leave them behind (escape velocity) eventually the solar system would leave them behind, our likely they would get caught up in a gravity well and drag along?

and then I must ask, earths rotation play a roll in the measurement of speed of light too, maybe.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanielKoenig
All I am trying to say is, how do we know our measurement of the speed of our tossing the balls, doesnt have to do with the speed the car is traveling?
The speed of the car may indeed influence the speed of the balls, but it doesn't influence the speed of the light coming from the headlights. Strange but true. This is a trick fake statement by Feynman based on that analogy...which works for the balls (after applying the corrections noted in the video in my previous post) but not for the speed of light.

Following is a false statement some troll posted on the internet, which sort of follows your ball analogy. This might sound logical, but nature doesn't work this way, and Richard Feynman never said this: it's the (wrong) idea behind your argument:



edit on 201776 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: ErosA433

If each of you could take a look at my article on InfoGalactic I'd appreciate it. I retain my belief that it is entirely viable with respect to all present experimentation. I've started another thread devoted to it, so if you could comment there that would be great. (This AMA thread is quite busy right now!)

The article has some overlap to the discussion here, as the Lorentz Equations are derived. And of course, the Lorentz equations give us the fact that v + v is not 2v, unless v is zero. Another tidbit for this discussion is that we know the speed of light EXACTLY. It is known EXACTLY for the only reason anything can be known EXACTLY - it is defined to be so. Otherwise we get into all those messy experiments, and we have errors (which I now know can be expressed in far too many ways).

a reply to: DanielKoenig

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Now I, too, have had some very lengthy postings here. My ABC Preon Model went on so long so as to lose my readership I am afraid. And some things do take a while to get a point across. You can't replace the standard model with a tweet, for instance. But all those caveats aside, it would help to make the points a bit quicker and in a non-repetitive fashion.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The speed of the car may indeed influence the speed of the balls, but it doesn't influence the speed of the light coming from the headlights. Strange but true.


My premise wasn't about the headlights of the car. My premise is that, when light is 'sparked' on Earth, it is not like 'a thing that exists on Earth' being tossed.

The EM field is not a thing on earth. The EM field is not a part of the earth, like a rock, and car is. The EM field is a part of space, embedded in all of space.

Earth is like the car. Space is like the road. When light is generated on earth, it is not like picking up a rock and throwing it this way or that way.

When light is generated, it is the space which is accessed.

You are helped out again with your magic, when you demand it to be declared and claimed that "space" is expanding. This is how you try to save face.

It would be like saying the highway is also a treadmill.

The earth is moving through space. When light is generated on Earth, a photon is not picked up like a rock is picked up, push the rock that way and it goes its velocity, pick up a photon and push it and it goes its velocity.

Do you get that, a photon is not a steady, stable, in the earth rest reference frame?

A rock is steady, stable, in the earth reference frame.

A photon is not sitting on the earth like a rock, sitting there at rest, in the earths reference frame.

Because... "photon field" exists ""everywhere"'"

The earth is traveling through a portion of this, "everywhere"

Every time a photon is generated on earth, its because this "everywhere field" is "touched"

Where is it, is it in a rock, surrounding a rock, where is the em everywhere field?

The Rock is moving with the earth. The entire EM field is not moving with the earth. A single photon is not moving with the earth.

A photon cannot be a stationary object on earth. Because the photon field is an everywhere field that cannot stop moving once it is put into motion.

The earth cannot stop moving either (at least we cant stop it), but it is not as if it cannot stop moving at light speed, as is the case of light.

Switch from car and highway to speed boat on water.

speed boat is consistently going 100 mph. Speed boat is the Earth. Water is the EM field. (even though this may be handy, reality is more complicated, because we are not riding on 'the surface of the em field, but submerged in its 3d/4d ality).

ignoring potential impossibility due to danger, if you reach your invincible hand out and touch the water, energy waves will propagate from that point.

this is mainly difficult, because its hard to imagine a boat the size of earth, and a body of water the size of the solar system.

In this case, the boat is porous.

The boat is not the water.

The earth is not the em field.

The boat travels through the water.

The earth travels through the em field.

however, the em field is so 'fine grain', and even though the earth seems super dense... the em field still in ways 'passes through it',

So even if you are in or on the boat, and not sticking your hand over the edge, every time you move anything, you are making splashes in the water.

Well now I may as well just use the medium of air huh.

Everytime an object on earth is moved, it is 'rippling the em field'. The earth is not the em field. The object is not the em field.

The em field is all around and in between all the crevices of all the material of earth.

Earth is moving fast.

When objects on Earth are moved, and they disturb the EM field, how can it actually be determined how fast the EM field travels (actually, not relatively...not relatively to earths movement)

Rippling water is material moving in earths reference frame.

Vibrated air is material moving in earths reference frame.

Light is "something" moving not in earths reference frame, but in its own universal reference frame.

Light is not an object on earth. Light is not 'some thing' sitting on earth.

Light, the field which allows light to propagate and be, is something surrounding earth, and in all its crevices, and earth is constantly traveling very fast through it.

When a movement on earth occurs to trigger a disturbance of the light field, the disturbance occurs in the light field! the disturbance occurs in the light field!! while the earth is still moving!

The splittest second the disturbance begins to occur, how much has the earth already moved in that time?



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

It is said gravity works because space bends/curves. Nothing cannot bend. Something needs to exist for 'bending' to be possible.

How heavy are the planets?

How heavy does space need to be in order to maintain the proximity of the planets?

Do you understand these questions? If you have a massive boulder, and you have a "slide made of fabric" in some arc suspended from a later, and you want to push the big boulder off the ladder so it slides down the fabric slide and lands 1000 feet away from the ladders base, that fabric must be 'strong and taught'.

Now instead of a big boulder imagine the Earth, and well, throw in all the other planets too. There must be a heavy, strong, taught 'fabric' that keeps the planets riding on their arc.

In the boulder scenario, if the fabric is not strong and taught enough, the path of least resistance will be quickly straight down and tear through.

If 'space' is not heavy, strong, and taught enough, the planets would have immediately 'flung off' away from the sun as they attempted to arc/revolve around it.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: DanielKoenig

Space curve is probably a mathematical artifact when wave interactions superpose points like..

Eulers equation appears in 2D.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

"In physics, an absolute theory refers to a theory wherein space and time are absolute"

What I replied to you above, is the main reason of the difficulty of determining the absoluteness of space. Because, space is stuff. Because in order for the planets to orbit the sun, that black stuff you look at at night, between the earth in the moon that we call space, needs to be full of stuff. Because if it was not full of stuff, if it was pure nothing, then the planets would not continue revolving around the sun. Because pure nothing cannot keep the planets revolving around the sun. Only something/stuff/substance/mass being 'that black distance in between and surrounding the planets' can keep the planets revolving around the sun. The planets are a lot of 'something/stuff/substance/mass'. It takes a lot of 'something/stuff/substance/mass' to keep a lot of 'something/stuff/substance/mass' in order.

If there was only pure nothing (as space), and then all matter was just like billiard balls, then absolute space would be easy. 3 dimensions of pure nothing. Balls of matter interacting in the 3 dimensions of space. And here we get to time, the different motions of the balls of matter would be 'time'.

God would know about absolute space and time. Its a bit harder for us, because we are relatively thrown in the mix, we are moving and spinning, so we need to base everything on calibration, we cant get a God eyes view and press slow motion and carefully plot every particle in the universe and every crest and trough of gravity wave in real time to say "that is the absolute exactness of space and time"



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Cauliflower

No, space is material/stuff. If it was not the planets could not orbit the sun. When someones house gets taken up in a tornado and the house orbits the eye of the tornado is this only due to a mathematical artifact? Or is it due to 'something' physically making the house orbit?

Something must be making the planets physically orbit the eye of the solar system.

Something must be making the house orbit the eye.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: DanielKoenig

It is occurring in the wave form of the matter in some geometric theories, for example if everything in the universe was expanding at a similar rate with no way to tell, there may be no such thing as a straight line in cosmic geometry.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cauliflower
a reply to: DanielKoenig

It is occurring in the wave form of the matter in some geometric theories, for example if everything in the universe was expanding at a similar rate with no way to tell, there may be no such thing as a straight line in cosmic geometry.



I was specifically referring to my interest in gravity, and how it is commonly referred to as 'space bending or curving in the presence of mass', and then the simpleton 2d demonstrations shown of bowling balls on a fabric/trampoline.

It starts with this,

Do you agree the sun exists?

Do you agree the sun is moving?

Do you agree the planets have consistently moved in an orbiting group?

That is the key point of this, if it was not orbiting involved, if the planets were like buck shot shot out of a shot gun, 9 or so bullets shot in the same direction, that just traveled in the same direction...but that isnt the case is it?

It is said the planets orbit the sun?

Do you know what the concept of orbit is? Going around? The planets arc around the sun?

The sun is moving ----------------------->

And the planets are not only moving ----------------->
with the sun, they are orbiting/revolving/arcing around it?

How do you propose they are doing this?

How is a physical body orbiting around another physical body that is moving?

How is a house orbiting around the eye of a tornado?

How is a buoy orbiting around the eye of a whirlpool?

How are the people orbiting around the center of the gravitron?

How are your turds orbiting around your flushed toilet bowl?

Do you comprehend and understand physically how the planets are orbiting around the sun?

edit on 6-7-2017 by DanielKoenig because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: DanielKoenig

I believe there is stuff in space; I believe there is an aether. I've done a derivation of Maxwell's equations from some very simple postulates assuming a two component aether. I hope to write that up on InfoGalactic as well before too long.

However, I know that special relativity is almost completely correct also. The only reason for the "almost" comes from quantum mechanics collapses. Bell's theorem experimental results, to me, are quite damning for the special theory. But I am in a minority on this opinion. Interestingly, one who agreed with me on this point was Einstein in his Einstein Podolski Rosen paper. The mob presently thinks Einstein was wrong in EPR but right about relativity. I take the opposite point of view. But I respect the mob. There are a lot of bright people there, brilliant mathematicians among them, and they simply have a different point of view of what we should allow in physics. Just because you (and to an extent I) don't believe in what they say doesn't mean they are certainly wrong. We might just be missing something, or maybe they are missing something. That is where experiment must be the judge.

All that said, much of your extremely lengthy posts here are still in direct conflict with what is known about physics. The Lorentz Equations are proven to be extremely accurate. We could not design working particle accelerators without them. And time is not balls in motion.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

Would you agree that cause and effect could not be violated and spooky action unmediated at a distance could not occur in a purely natural universe?

Would you agree that if the universe is a simulation/Gods computer, that things would be able to occur in it, that would not be able to occur if the universe was just a natural physical occurrence?

When I become skeptical of claims about quantum mechanics, its only those that would be impossible to occur in a natural physical universe: like Particle A 'notifying' particle B to change its state without touching it, without anything touching it.


Try to argue this proof about time (responding to your last sentence):

Matter/energy exists.

Matter/energy moves.

Time, the measurements of time, are the measurements of matter/energys movements.

If matter/energy existed, but eternally was promised to not move, there would be no time. There would be no time to measure.

Think about a metronome, the difference in time is the differences in movement. In that sense, a pure measurestick of time, is like a pure math concept, simply 'consistent beats'. Time is consistent beats, you can say.

If all matter/energy was motionless for all eternity (besides a consistent steady beat maker) you would have no time to measure, well yea, you can keep the beats, but the point I was trying to get at is, majority, the relativity of time, is the measurement of the relativity of the motions of matter/energy

or else you can say: time = consistent beats.

But all you would really need is 'the fastest possible beat', as I can say, a minute does not exist, a minute is merely 60 seconds... a minute is not a thing... 60 seconds is a thing, seconds exist... well not so fast, seconds arent really a thing, seconds are composed of milliseconds... and so on.

So time is 'consistent beat' (consistent velocity of movement between consistent points), and it is used to measure the various movements of matter: the amount of time it takes a runner to run, the amount of time it takes the earth to circle the sun, the amount of time it takes light to get here from distant star, the amount of words you can type in amount of time (all measurements of matter/energy movement)



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanielKoenig
When objects on Earth are moved, and they disturb the EM field, how can it actually be determined how fast the EM field travels (actually, not relatively...not relatively to earths movement)
There are several issues with this.

If you want to measure the speed of anything, according to relativity it has to be a speed relative to something. If not the earth, then what?

We measure the speed of objects, and we measure the speed of light. I've never seen a paper saying the speed of the EM field has been measured, maybe it has been and you can show me the paper showing how that's done because without an experimental observational method of exactly what you're talking about I have no idea exactly what it is you're trying to measure. We don't observe the field directly, we observe excitations of it called particles and we can and do measure those.

I can tell you this, we think the cosmic microwave background has the same frequency everywhere in all directions, but that's not what we observe. We observe the frequencies higher in one direction and we interpret that as the result of our motion through space in that direction. We also observe the frequencies lower in the opposite direction.

Once again those frequency shifts are what we expect to see as a result of the Earth's motion and we do see them. The same principle applies if the light originates on Earth. An observer on Earth will see the same frequency in all directions if the light source on earth is stationary with respect to the earth, but an observer in another galaxy would see the light from the Earth appear to be blue-shifted if the Earth was moving toward them and red-shifted if the Earth was moving away from them. In either case they should measure the same speed of light in a vacuum we do on earth.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


What is......




...the average wingspan of a swallow?....



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: prevenge
I don't know and it doesn't sound like a physics question.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: DanielKoenig


I won't get into hypotheticals about what might exist. That is completely open. One can engage in whatever fantasies one wishes. My concern is what does exist.

Time is an abstraction. It is a concept. You appear to confuse the abstraction with instantiated physical effects that allow measurements. A pendulum is not time. It can approximately measure time, but it is not time.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

Time is the fact a pendulum can occur. Time is 'all possible pendulums'. Time is the quickest possible velocity over the shortest possible distance.



posted on Jul, 7 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: prevenge

African or European?




top topics



 
72
<< 321  322  323    325  326  327 >>

log in

join