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: 34
74
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: KrzYma

but look, you said...


...Heck -- you could even say both were traveling the same direction, but spacecraft A is moving 75% light speed while spacecraft B is moving only 25% light speed. Even in that case, the people on spacecraft B could say they were sitting still while spacecraft A moved away from them at 50% light speed.


how does A move with 75% of light speed ??
relative to what??
to speed of light ? BS !!

it still moves 50% of light speed relative to B like you said
and A(as a system) has internal speed of light always C - according to relativity !

what you are saying is YOU are C, new observer looking at A and B.
But the problem contains A and B only in the beginning, there is no observer outside...


If A and B were both first "sitting still" (or what they consider sitting still), and then "A" went 75% of the speed of light, and "B" went 25% the speed of light (or those fractions of the speed of light that they measured from the time frame generated from their "still" positions)...

...AND THEN if someone on spacecraft B who wasn't privy to the information that both ships began this motion looked at the situation, that person could validly say that spacecraft B could be considered to be sitting still while spacecraft A was moving away at 50% light speed.

That's because, as you say, there is not other frame of reference to gauge their motion. It's all just relative (and it's all just relativity).



Yes, I understand this, but still, if you say they don't move... don't move relative to what ??
"sitting still" relative to what ??

the only thing that matters it the speed relative between the A and B
as soon as you "define" this system to be somewhere else sitting still ore moving, C (new observer) is created!

You need to add a third observer to "see" if A or B is moving faster relative to YOU and YOU create the speed from your frame.
From your frame, A could be moving faster and B slower...
But YOU don't know nothing about your speed.
so... for observer B you could be moving in the other direction and what you see is just an illusion of A moving faster than B

Without C, only with A and B, A sees B's time going slower and B sees A's time going slower because non of them can say which one is moving. It's always the other one who moves and his time is going slower (according to Einstein)

all relative like you know!


edit on 14-8-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: krash661
you call it insults, i call it pointing out the reality.
and also, what i know and understand is probably beyond what you can actually conceive.

all in all, i had enough of this ridiculous thread.


Ah....You can deduce that from my post above.

Wow! You ARE good!



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

Yeah like i said physics prophet.
Stereotypically knows more than anyone else but is not able to actually express it more than that one sentence.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: KrzYma

but look, you said...


...Heck -- you could even say both were traveling the same direction, but spacecraft A is moving 75% light speed while spacecraft B is moving only 25% light speed. Even in that case, the people on spacecraft B could say they were sitting still while spacecraft A moved away from them at 50% light speed.


how does A move with 75% of light speed ??
relative to what??
to speed of light ? BS !!

it still moves 50% of light speed relative to B like you said
and A(as a system) has internal speed of light always C - according to relativity !

what you are saying is YOU are C, new observer looking at A and B.
But the problem contains A and B only in the beginning, there is no observer outside...


If A and B were both first "sitting still" (or what they consider sitting still), and then "A" went 75% of the speed of light, and "B" went 25% the speed of light (or those fractions of the speed of light that they measured from the time frame generated from their "still" positions)...

...AND THEN if someone on spacecraft B who wasn't privy to the information that both ships began this motion looked at the situation, that person could validly say that spacecraft B could be considered to be sitting still while spacecraft A was moving away at 50% light speed.

That's because, as you say, there is not other frame of reference to gauge their motion. It's all just relative (and it's all just relativity).



Yes, I understand this, but still, if you say they don't move... don't move relative to what ??
"sitting still" relative to what ??


Right. There is no external frame of reference for them to say that their initial state was "standing still" relative to that frame of reference, so the could have just a validly claimed that their initial state was in fact a state of "standing still". The two spacecraft could have mutually agreed that they were both standing still, because those two spacecraft are the only two objects in this system (the system in this thought experiment).

They could both be moving (together) at 1,000,000 mph relative to a third observer "C", but that third observer is not part of this system, so what observer "C" sees can be ignored, considering we only care about A and B relative to each other.



the only thing that matters it the speed relative between the A and B
as soon as you "define" this system to be somewhere else sitting still ore moving, C (new observer) is created!

You need to add a third observer to "see" if A or B is moving faster relative to YOU and YOU create the speed from your frame.
From your frame, A could be moving faster and B slower...
But YOU don't know nothing about your speed.
so... for observer B you could be moving in the other direction and what you see is just an illusion of A moving faster than B

Without C, only with A and B, A sees B's time going slower and B sees A's time going slower because non of them can say which one is moving. It's always the other one who moves and his time is going slower (according to Einstein)

all relative like you know!



It sounds like we are basically saying the same thing -- i.e., that B could say A was the one moving and A could just as validly state that B was the one moving.

However, we don't need to even consider observer C. What observer C is seeing is from a different time frame of reference, anyway. How C observes A and B would be different that how B observes C and how A observes C. For the simplicity of this thought experiment, I think two frames of reference (A and B) are enough.




edit on 8/14/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   


knows more than anyone else but is not able to actually express it more than that one sentence.


i'll post it again since it appears there is a malfunctioning occurrence with the comprehension and thought process.
it's not realized that the replying comments show the lack of comprehension.
it's that simple
again, i had enough of this ridiculous thread.

light doesn't slow down at all.
it's path/ velocity changes.
which creates a longer path
correlate path and position.

understand that vacuum space means empty.
and no light does not travel in a straight line at all.
look into compton scattering.
and second, again it does not slow down, it's path changes , which is what occurs in the medium.
light flows like a field in all directions it can
if you are on the side of light,
it would not be moving, it would be static.
imagine if a mirror and i (mirror point at me) are traveling at the speed of light
both traveling the same speed of light, the light never reaches the mirror.
so would i be invisible ?
now think about square (c^2)
and another thing,
no it's not complicated at all.

as for a medium, matter,
fields of influence
divide up the conception of the physical world because each existence consists of different layers.
it consists of a material illusion and a sphere of influence.
certain physical conditions are associated only with the realm of the material,
while other and more complicated conditions are associated only with the sphere of influence of the material world.
the conception of the physical world is based upon a simple material illusion
the illusion is further subdivided into three elementary or basic conditions of matter.
a fourth and very important condition also exists,
it is the one bordering on the sphere of influence or plasma realm
a controlled transformation or an elevation of the frequency of matter and the stable existence of this fourth aggregate condition of matter exists at a very primitive level.
there are simply five states of matter.
plasma, i don't mean just "hot gas" (as the concept is generally simplified),
but rather i mean a higher aggregate condition of matter.
the plasma state of matter is a special form of matter which lies between its real existence and the sphere of influence,
that is,
a complete loss of mass and pure accretion of energy of various form whenever matter is "pushed or shoved."
the fourth state of matter is very important for certain physical conditions which can be used to generate antigravity.
essentially, in the world of real physics, there are no bipolar forces, but rather only "observer dependent reflective behavior" of a single, large unified force at different levels.
edit on 14-8-2014 by krash661 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People



It sounds like we are basically saying the same thing -- i.e., that B could say A was the one moving and A could just as validly state that B was the one moving.

I think we do


What I'm not sure is if we agree that the "direction" is also important.
I say... it is important if the distance between A and B increases, creating the illusion of time slowing down on that observed object moving away, or... if the distance between A and B decreases, creating the illusion of time speeding up on that observed object moving towards the observer.

same like red/blue shift in light spectra.
edit on 14-8-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-8-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: krash661



imagine if a mirror and i (mirror point at me) are traveling at the speed of light
both traveling the same speed of light, the light never reaches the mirror.
so would i be invisible ?


travelling relative to what ??
your distance relative to the mirror is not changing, right ?
so no, you will see the mirror and the reflection of you in it

edit on 14-8-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-8-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain
I'd like to thank most of the contributors here for their exceptionally good manners, even in response to insults. People are welcome to disagree, not only with me or any other poster here, but also with mainstream science. All I ask is at least some effort to post sources to support the alternate viewpoints/claims, and to not call the person you disagree with an idiot. I may have a lot of disagreements with AnarchoCapitalist but I do have to give him credit for posting sources to try to support his viewpoint, and such contributions are welcome here whether I agree with them or not, and by the way I don't think either of us thinks the other is an idiot, we just disagree and that's ok.

However poor manners, insults and unsupported claims are generally not welcome here in the science and technology forum. There are other forums for unsupported claims, like the "gray area" forum, and poor manners and insults are generally not welcome anywhere on this website, but there are plenty of other websites which allow this.


originally posted by: UB2120
What is the source of universal gravity? What is the source of the non-decaying spin of the electron?
When you see the word "fundamental" in physics, it often means that we don't know any deeper explanation for the observation, yet. We can say mass "bends space-time" but beyond this we don't know exactly why this happens so we call it a "fundamental" interaction.

Several properties of the electron are "fundamental", like mass, charge, spin, and we don't really know exactly why those have the values they do. Someday we might and then they won't be called "fundamental" anymore, but something deeper will probably take its place and that will be called "fundamental", is my guess.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Why is it that cosmologists insist that the universe is inflating, but only in parts of the universe where there is no matter - between clusters? If universal inflation were a thing, how could it be called universal inflation if it wasn't universal? Selective universal inflation? What if matter was the product of universal inflation, and that without said inflation, the matter could not exist?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Mon1k3r
It's trying to inflate everywhere, but the force causing the inflation is offset by gravitational forces where there are gravitational forces.

Let's say you release a whole lot of balloons, some of which are under umbrellas.

All the balloons are trying to rise, but those that get caught in the umbrellas are unable to do so. The upward pressure of the balloons are still there, under the umbrella, but it's just overwhelmed by the umbrella. In this analogy the umbrellas could be seen perhaps as galaxies, with the stuck balloons representing inflation that is trying to happen but can't due to other forces.

Someone calculated what the expansion of our solar system would be due to inflation, which turned out to be a non-zero number, but it was too small to actually measure.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   
amusing,
this nonsense that is being spewed is nothing more than,
an elementary student attempting to do graduate level work,
without knowing or understanding anything in between.

all in all, please continue it's amusing.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mon1k3r
Why is it that cosmologists insist that the universe is inflating, but only in parts of the universe where there is no matter - between clusters? If universal inflation were a thing, how could it be called universal inflation if it wasn't universal? Selective universal inflation? What if matter was the product of universal inflation, and that without said inflation, the matter could not exist?


To tack on a question to this line of thought; What if the universe was rotating, would we not detect redshifted light from a galaxy that (in relation to our bodies) was moving to our right, while our galaxy was moving to our left?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: krash661
imagine if a mirror and i (mirror point at me) are traveling at the speed of light
both traveling the same speed of light, the light never reaches the mirror.
so would i be invisible ?


As I said the first time I answered this, according to the standard theory, you (or anything with resting mass) cannot move at the speed of light. The energy required to do so is infinite, and when "infinity" comes into the equation, then that means something is wrong.

So...

Let's modify this thought experiment a little, and instead say you and your mirror are moving at 50% of the speed of light. A person might think that it would take twice as long as usual for the light coming from your body to reach the mirror (because the mirror is moving so fast "ahead" of that light -- at 1/2 the same speed of the light) so it might seem like it would take longer before you see your reflection.

However, to you, even though you were moving, the light would still reach the mirror at the exact same time as it should. This is where time dilation comes into play. To you, clocks are moving normally. But to someone watching you, your clock is moving 50% more slowly. To that outside observer, it may seem that the light from your body took twice as long to reach the mirror, but to you (with time moving along more slowly for you) you don't notice that it took twice as long, because your "slowed-down-time frame" is telling you it took the normal amount of time for the light to reach the mirror.

Again, time dilation is what is making the speed of light constant in all time frames.

Do you agree or disagree with this concept of time dilation as it pertains to the speed of light? If you disagree, please state clearly why you disagree.


edit on 8/14/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

To have fun with a thought experiment, lets suppose matter can travel the speed of light.

He uses the example: Suppose a mirror is pointed at me. But how about lets say, he is enclosed in a sphere, that is surrounded by mirrors facing outwardly. If this mirror sphere is moving at the speed of light, and you are performing different trails shining flash lights towards this mirror, or even in a steady place waiting for the mirror sphere to pass through your beam, would there be an interesting effect and/or hard to correlate any physical information regarding the mirror spheres physical qualities?

Or, if the mirror sphere (or in this we can even use him traveling at speed of light holding a mirror out in front of him, pointed at him), is traveling at the speed of light, and you are traveling being him with a flashlight, will he be undetectable because, in essence, your light as light, would be traveling speed of light, and he would be traveling speed of light, so this question is 'when light is following light can it ever catch up?', and I suppose the answer is no.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

To have fun with a thought experiment, lets suppose matter can travel the speed of light.


If he and the mirror could move at the speed of light, then he would never know if his light reached the mirror or not, because he would be frozen in time.


edit on 8/14/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Wow your post is very thought provoking, about the states of matter. let me give it some good thought.
a reply to: krash661



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

If he and the mirror could move at the speed of light, then he would never know if his light reached the mirror or not, because he would be frozen in time.



from your point of view, not his !
for him the speed of light is C according to Einstein
and it doesn't really matter what you are observing, for his reference of frame he is standing still and you are moving !



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi



He uses the example: Suppose a mirror is pointed at me. But how about lets say, he is enclosed in a sphere, that is surrounded by mirrors facing outwardly. If this mirror sphere is moving at the speed of light, and you are performing different trails shining flash lights towards this mirror, or even in a steady place waiting for the mirror sphere to pass through your beam, would there be an interesting effect and/or hard to correlate any physical information regarding the mirror spheres physical qualities?


so you are talking about a reflector that moves with the speed of light, and you shine light on it, right ?

if it moves towards you, you will not know till it hits you, and you will never see any reflection if it moves away from you



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: krash661
a fourth and very important condition also exists,
it is the one bordering on the sphere of influence or plasma realm
a controlled transformation or an elevation of the frequency of matter and the stable existence of this fourth aggregate condition of matter exists at a very primitive level.
there are simply five states of matter.
plasma, i don't mean just "hot gas" (as the concept is generally simplified),
but rather i mean a higher aggregate condition of matter.
the plasma state of matter is a special form of matter which lies between its real existence and the sphere of influence,
that is,
a complete loss of mass and pure accretion of energy of various form whenever matter is "pushed or shoved."
the fourth state of matter is very important for certain physical conditions which can be used to generate antigravity.


I'm not sure how the "spheres of influence" you mentioned are involved, but "Plasma" can be more easily defined as simply being matter that has had its electrons in its atoms disassociated from the nucleus of the atoms.

This can be achieved by running an electrical charge through gas, such as in a neon sign. The visible stuff in a neon sign would be the plasma.

If you have a different definition for plasma than the standard one, then I like to hear it. Also, could you explain what this other state of matter (you called it the fourth state, with plasma being the fifth)? What are the physical characteristics of this state of matter?

For example:

Solid: Matter with not enough energy to break its intermolecular bonds (bonds holding the molecules together) -- Therefore the atoms can not move around freely.

Liquid: Matter with enough energy that atoms do move around freely, but still not enough to completely break free of the intermolecular bonds.

gas: Matter with enough energy that atoms break free of the intermolecular bonds.

plasma: Matter with enough energy that the electrons break free of (or at least they become disassociated with) the rest of the atom.

Other state of matter: ??? Please describe.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
I have another question, its much more mundane, its about electricity. It came about by a suggestion in another thread that to me seemed to not fit with my understanding of electricity.

Can you determine polarity (negative/positive) by measuring resistance (ohms)?.


If you take an ohm meter and hold the two ends in your hands you will find that one hand is positive and one hand is negative.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Seems not right to me, but hey I never did science at university (CompSci isnt really science, and Law is the opposite).
edit on 14-8-2014 by RifRAAF because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join