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: 342
75
<< 339  340  341    343  344  345 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Also if whales are mammals where are their nipples?


Too lazy to google it?
www.discoverwildlife.com...

It's not a physics question anyway.




posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: moebius

It works for me.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Thought id make your google fu easy for you phage
edit on 24-9-2017 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: Arbitrageur


In the quote you give, note Mach again. That is the departure point of Einstein. No more physical models, just principles, followed by math, leading to experimental tests.
I don't really follow this, because it's not like Newton gave us a physical model of gravitation other than the math. He said he didn't know how gravity worked, so other than the obvious inverse-square geometry in the math, I'm not seeing the physical model of gravity from Newton, even before Einstein.

Also I think you give too much credit to Mach and Hume, because though Einstein credits them both profusely, his original idea in the special theory is something that neither of them wrote about which is that simultaneity of events is observer dependent. Also Einstein departed from their way of thinking with regard to how our sense impressions may be fictional and whether such fictional perceptions needed to be eliminated from our accounts of nature.

www.pitt.edu...

Hume and Mach’s analyses of space and time address many aspects of the notions of space and time. But they pass over the specific aspect that was the entirety of Einstein’s conceptual breakthrough of 1905: an analysis of the simultaneity of distant events that shows that observers in relative motion need not agree on which events are simultaneous. That is not to be found in Hume and Mach’s writing. What is to be found, however, is an account of the nature of concepts in general: concepts are dependent entirely on our sense impressions or sensations; they are inapplicable as representations of reality, that is, fictional, in so far as they extend beyond our sense experience.

Neither Hume nor Mach saw this fictional character as a tool that could be used in theory construction; fictional concepts were false representations to be eliminated from one's account of nature or at best tolerated if, as Hume held of causation, the elimination was unachievable. Here Einstein differed. One does not have to eliminate a fictional concept. Its presence indicated an arbitrariness in our physical theorizing. It could be retained as long as its arbitrary character was recognized and it was accommodated in such a way as to preclude unwitting introduction of false presumptions. At the decisive moment in his discovery of special relativity, Einstein did just this. He recognized that the traditional concept of the simultaneity of distant events was not fixed by experience; and that its use had tacitly committed us to a false presumption, the absoluteness of simultaneity—its independence from the state of motion of the observer. So he replaced it with a new concept of simultaneity. It was introduced by a freely chosen definition that exploited the arbitrariness of the concept. That definition brought no tacit commitment to the absoluteness of simultaneity. In the context of the postulates of his new theory, it led to the relativity of simultaneity, the dependence of judgments of simultaneity of distant events on the state of motion of the observer.




Also, when you say things don't touch in the old sense of things I partially agree. But I don't think it is relativity and its insistence of point-like interactions that is the main culprit - rather it is quantum mechanics.
What part don't you agree with and who said it had anything to do with relativity? The whole context of this discussion started with Daniel trying so hard to figure out the solution to the action at a distance "problem" where we can't see how one body influences another without touching, and now we know that's the norm rather than the exception since nothing really "touches".


We now know that when two atoms nestle inside an ionic solid that they aren't solid balls touching in a classical sense. Rather, it is a Pauli exclusion of the electron wave functions that keeps them a certain distance apart even though their opposite charges continue to provide a force of attraction. So yes, its certainly different than the old thoughts of touch!
Where we thought two surfaces were touching each other, yes the Pauli exclusion principle plays an important role but it's a "pseudo-force", it's not a real force as there's no real force carrier, and the coulomb forces still play an important role.


originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: moebius

It works for me.
You can post the video of your experiment if you want, so we can see if you're doing anything differently than the experiment below.

Here's the experiment done by CrasyRussianHacker. Not until the third trial does he use a control that's not tapped, but if anything the tapping looks like it hurts more than helps maybe by adding some agitation, but at least it doesn't seem to help.

How to defuse a shaken Coke? - Fake or Legit?



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The point was the concept of action at a distance bothered Newton because he had a primitive understanding of science, but since then our understanding has grown and turned many ideas upside-down.


Comprehend this, for good:

Between body/mass/charge A and body/mass/charge B 'action at a distance' is possible. (BIG IF!) If there is 'something' inbetween them which they are both touching.

When you say this:



because on small scales there is no touch, it's really another form of "action-at-a-distance". When you sit in a chair, it holds you up by "action-at-a-distance" albeit a short distance but still we now know that what we thought of as "touch" doesn't really happen like we used to think.


You are referring to charge repulsion I presume (at the very least), when you sit in the chair your body is not touching the chair, because electrons cant touch.

This is what you are attempting to express?

So lets return to this:

"Back to my eternally correct statement:
The only conceivable way for a body to effect a body without its body touching the other, is a medium existing between them, or for the body to contain or posses other bodies which it can projectile."

Now all you have to do is answer these questions:

When electrons repel, is there absolutely pure nothing in between the electrons?

Is the electric field absolutely nothing?

Is the magnetic field absolutely nothing?

Do the electrons touch the electric and magnetic field (that is, if they are not absolutely pure nothing)?

Noone is arguing that action at a distance is impossible, I can take a ping pong ball tilt my head up and blow and keep the ball suspended, at the very least move the ball, and the body of my mouth and the body of the ball do not touch, this is action at a distance. The argument is whether action between two bodies can occur with absolutely pure nothing in between them.

You hardly address any of my points, and what you have brought up seems entirely petty, deflecting, ignoring and lacking of substance, meaning and intrigue.

What are you even trying to say, what are you even denying of what I have said? Never mind any of that, just answer my few questions above and you should see how and where you are mistaken, that is, if you promise and swear to refuse to be intellectually dishonest.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: DanielKoenig
I did answer in my previous reply but it seems to me that it's you ignoring my answer. Again:


originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I think it's probably best to consider limiting the usage of the word "nothing" because in science it seems that "nothing" isn't a very good descriptor of even "empty space" or a "vacuum" which has properties so if it has properties, it's not "nothing" in that sense.
Yet you're still using the word "nothing" as if it has a meaningful definition in science.


Is the electric field absolutely nothing?
An electric field has properties. Can absolutely nothing have properties?


Is the magnetic field absolutely nothing?
A magnetic field has properties. Can absolutely nothing have properties?


Noone is arguing that action at a distance is impossible, I can take a ping pong ball tilt my head up and blow and keep the ball suspended, at the very least move the ball, and the body of my mouth and the body of the ball do not touch, this is action at a distance.
No, one could say the air molecules were creating the "action" so that is not an example of old physics idea of "action at a distance" which applied primarily to things like electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields.


"Back to my eternally correct statement:
The only conceivable way for a body to effect a body without its body touching the other, is a medium existing between them, or for the body to contain or posses other bodies which it can projectile."
I'm sorry but this "Daniel's eternally correct statement" is not a law of nature, it's a false dichotomy. It's still talking about "touch" and the point you seem to be missing is that the idea of "touch" is now an antiquated concept in science to which this statement still attempts to cling. It also implies if there's no "medium" whatever that is, that the projectile bodies would be creating the "action", again presumably by "touching" somehow, and we now know that such touching doesn't normally occur. So it seems to me the entire foundation for your "eternally correct" statement of "touch" has been an obsolete idea for the better part of a century. If we were both living 150 years ago and you said that it might make sense to me, but it doesn't today, because now we know things that we didn't know 150 years ago.

edit on 2017924 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

I did answer in my previous reply but it seems to me that it's you ignoring my answer. Again:

I think it's probably best to consider limiting the usage of the word "nothing" because in science it seems that "nothing" isn't a very good descriptor of even "empty space" or a "vacuum" which has properties so if it has properties, it's not "nothing" in that sense.

Yet you're still using the word "nothing" as if it has a meaningful definition in science.



This is the equivalent of the child who calls time out right as they are about to be tagged it in the game tag.

"no you cant prove me wrong! Stop successfully making my notions and agenda appear meaningless and nonsensical! lalalala you cant attempt to prove me wrong, only I say the things and you nod your head, only what is in my head is correct, I do not read and listen to what you say, I just misread and misinterpret and misconstrue and deflect and distract and conflate and obfuscate!"




No, one could say the air molecules were creating the "action" so that is not an example of old physics idea of "action at a distance" which applied primarily to things like electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields.


Im not going to say what were the old physics idea of 'action at a distance' because I now know better (though I have known better), I will ask: What do you think the old physics idea of 'action at a distance' were?

You see I cant ask you 'what is, what was this and that', I have to now ask you 'what do you think this and that is, was', because you are so steeped and mixed up and around with so much subtle interpretations and misinterpretations and misunderstandings its boggling, your understanding and comprehension.




It's still talking about "touch" and the point you seem to be missing is that the idea of "touch" is now an antiquated concept in science to which this statement still attempts to cling.



Atoms and electrons dont touch each other because THE ELECTRIC/MAGNETIC FIELD/MEDIUM/AETHER EXISTS BETWEEN THEM.

The electricmagnetic field/medium/aether is not nothing.

That is how electron can influence an electron without the electron touching the electron, there is "NOT NOTHING" in between the electrons, it has been called 'electric magnetic field'.

Just like you can move a floating ball without touching it in water by splashing the water.

The electron and atoms interact with one another without touching by splashing the electromagnetic field/medium/aether.

Dont you comprehend why I asked those questions you tried to weasel your way out of answering?

Because the reason your body and your chair are "not touching" is because the electromagnetic field is in between them, the electrons of your body and the electrons of the chair are touching the electromagnetic field.

There is no evidence you can provide that suggests object A influences object B across a space of pure nothing without touching.

If the universe is fake such things can happen sure, but I am not certain it is. If you are certain that across a distance of pure nothing, object A can influence object B without the objects bodies touching, then you are certain the universe is fake.

You are so uncareful with subject matter and your thinking. You are so willy nilly. You have so many extreme conclusions that you strongly cling to without fully questioning. And without even fully understanding the nature of. But sure, ignore the actual relevant subject matter of this post to respond to these myopic minutiaed quips. Because I am proving your statements to be nonsense over and over and you severely need to distract an deflect.


edit on 25-9-2017 by DanielKoenig because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




I don't really follow this, because it's not like Newton gave us a physical model of gravitation other than the math. He said he didn't know how gravity worked, so other than the obvious inverse-square geometry in the math, I'm not seeing the physical model of gravity from Newton, even before Einstein.


The difference is Newton sought an underlying physical cause. Einstein dismissed such thinking as unnecessary. Prior to Einstein the philosophy was that there should be an underlying physical model, even if it had not yet been obtained. However, since Newton did not achieve what he sought, I can certainly see your point.



Also Einstein departed from their way of thinking with regard to how our sense impressions may be fictional and whether such fictional perceptions needed to be eliminated from our accounts of nature.


Thanks for including this. Yes, Einstein made a major contribution to how we view our world. No doubt. I simply believe that Einstein, Mach and Hume's work led to a limiting (almost even an elimination) of what had been for millennia a fruitful approach toward scientific advancement - basing hypotheses on underlying physical models. This approach was especially useful in the three centuries between Sir Francis Bacon and Einstein, once the model approach was advanced by Bacon's scientific method.



What part don't you agree with and who said it had anything to do with relativity? The whole context of this discussion started with Daniel trying so hard to figure out the solution to the action at a distance "problem" where we can't see how one body influences another without touching, and now we know that's the norm rather than the exception since nothing really "touches".


The part I don't totally agree with is that we might possibly consider an overlap of wavefunctions to be "touching". We can replace the old classical concept of two hard surfaces in contact by a somewhat more fuzzy one and still have "touch". (Once two atoms get close enough that the Pauli exclusion strongly forbids further closing of their separation, we can call this a "touch".) For instance, when I throw a baseball my hand can "touch" the ball, and impart speed to it, if we consider the "touch" to be the boundary between all the outer electron wave functions of my hand "touching" those of the ball. I don't see such a description as all that radically different than the classical one.

As for relativity, I brought it into the conversation. Whenever we go along the lines of "we've moved on in our thinking" I believe that "moving on" comes from three sources, which are quantum mechanics, relativity and positivism. (Maybe there are other sources too?) I perhaps should have brought in positivism too. But it is relativity that causes the spookiness of quantum mechanics, due to its preclusion of finite bodies as a result of its insistence on point-like interactions. If we consider the electron cloud to be a real thing of finite extent, it could still touch, as mentioned above. I'd still say that it is more QM than relativity that makes us depart from classical touching, but relativity plays a role too in how we interpret QM.

Where I believe we all agree is the supremacy of the scientific method - hypothesis, reduction to testable differences, and doing the tests to see which set of hypotheses are best.

You might enjoy the irony of the fact that I spent a long time (years) trying to understand the static electric force from within my classical aether model. This past weekend I think I finally understand how it comes about. And the insight came when I looked at things from an energy standpoint assuming an exchange of position between free and attached aether. Up until that time I had fought and fought to come up with a purely classical derivation based on touching of small cubes. It is important that we not stick to any one way of thought, as other ways can open our minds to other possibilities. After understanding things from the exchange perspective, I could then see a different "touching" argument. It no longer used cubes though. We profit when we approach things in more than one way!



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: DanielKoenig


Arbitrageur is merely trying to present some rather radical ideas to you. He has a pretty good grasp of things, and frequently posts valuable resources on many topics.

There are other ways to think about things beyond the classical ideas (underlying models, objective reality) that you support. I am a HUGE proponent of that classical thought as well, and my theories can be expressed that way. But much of modern physics (today's status quo) cannot be discussed on the terms you are insisting upon. The status quo is a totally new way of looking at things that is alien to most people.

Many scientists, if not most, and possibly including Arbitrageur, view the present status quo as a great advance over the prior classical thinking. Many very brilliant minds have contributed to this new way of thinking. However, the math of physics no longer comes from the thinking you assume must exist. The assumption now is that the underlying classical models were just a more primitive way of thinking, and perhaps nature is too subtle to be understood in the old classical ways. So physics became a search for principles - the principle of relativity; the principle of least action; the uncertainty principle and the correspondence principle are some of the major ones. From the principle of least action you get to Lagrangian mechanics, and from there we can predict the results of experiments, and all experiments agree with the predictions. (At least when objective reality is set aside and one allows for a laundry list of inputs.) So one can consider the collection of principles to be some sort of a view of "truth". It could be that there is no touching of anything, and entities just pop in and out of existence in a way governed by the mathematical expressions (QED) that we stumble upon but do not fully understand. I don't personally like that way of thinking, but only the scientific method should be appealed to as judge. My opinion, or yours, or the "community" doesn't matter. Only tests matter. And for the vast majority of cases, tests support the status quo.

That said, I maintain that the departure from objective reality, Bell's theorem, the two slit experiment, the cosmological constant, renormalization, running couplings, and the rather large number of "fundamental constants" are rather severe problems with accepting the status quo.



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: delbertlarson

Arbitrageur is merely trying to present some rather radical ideas to you.


Why are you assuming I haven't heard many times and don't know and understand those ideas equally or better than him? I know the 'radical ideas' very well and understand how and why they exist as ideas, which is precisely why I am able to successfully argue against their existence.

Arb is just throwing out these misunderstood, contrived pop sci shiny magic ideas. "things don't touch!" (why did he bring this up, what does this have to do with what I was talking about, nevermind that, I clearly expressed why his declaration was invalid and meaningless in relation to what we were discussing and reality)

"simultaneity can't happen!" why did you bring this up? "quantum mechanics is weird mannnn!"

"science is cool!! and magical and crazy!!.blackhole!! wormhole!!!"

We were talking about the fundamental nature of EM and Gravity, and potential current problems with its full understanding and ways to look at those problems. Arb posed as if he was joining the discussion, but really just interjected random topics pretending to be points of contention against what we or I was discussing.

Action at a distance: Gravity. Magnetism/electricism

It LOOKS (LOOKS!!! APPEARS!!!!) as if a magnet attracts/repels a magnet at a distance. The body of the magnet does not touch the body of the other magnet.

The body of the sun does not touch the body of the earth and the body of the moon.

Because it looks like the body of the magnet must be responsible for the repulsion/attraction it imparts on the body of the magnet, and because it looks like the body of the sun must be responsible for the observation the earth continuously stays near the sun (because if the sun was not responsible for the earth revolving around it, what would be responsible?)

The conversation then must move to: How is the body of the magnet causing the body of the other magnet to move without their bodies touching.

How is the body of the Sun causing the body of the Earth to move without their bodies touching.

Arb has not thought much about this problem (or he is a troll) this situation, so he has concluded the answer is 'magic'. So he has concluded noone can possible work towards reaching a comprehension of the possible solutions of this problem.

You and I give the obvious solutions: Bodies can cause bodies at a distance to move if there is a medium they are both touching. I gave many examples of this, air, water, solids.

That is great evidence, great clues into this 'mystery'.

What is arbs theory of possible solution to how the magnet moves the magnet, to how the sun moves the earth?

'noone knows, noone can know, dont talk about it, dont let me listen to your arguments and discussions, action a distance! simuleteniaty! double slit! many worlds!'

'I cant see anything between the magnets, I cant see anything between the earth and the sun. therefore nothing is between them..... but dont use the word nothing! because we even know that a vacuum is not really nothing! therefore I am saying something exists inbetween the magnets, and something exists between the earth and sun, so the magnets are not touching, woahhhh no things touch!!

But there is not nothing in between them (because we even know that a vacuum is not really nothing!) so what reason is there to not assume that the magnets are touching this '(because we even know that a vacuum is not really nothing!)' and the sun and the earth are touching this '(because we even know that a vacuum is not really nothing!)' and that this is the analogous equivalent of the body- medium- body examples as seen in air and water and solids.

We have already moved so far past these obvious and silly little contentions, but arb just dragged the conversation back down to these simple obvious potentials because...because? if he hasn't seriously thought about something, its impossible for you to have. If he has read in pop sci weekly that things don't touch, thats it, end of story, you cant think about why they dont touch, you must exist in a state of mystery, you must use this mystery to impress and surprise your normal friends and family at how smart and mysterious you and the universe is. Thats what its all about.

Reality, the universe, The Truth, exists in a state of 'weird mystery' in arbs head (and in science masters head). The Truth, excuse me, THE TRUTH, THE ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF REAL REALITY AT ALL GIVEN TIMES, is not known. Its not fully known, therefore in your head, The Truth, must be a swampy mixy hallucgenic superimposition of uncertainty and mystery, you cannot ground and grasp to anything, its all out of reach, Truth is out of reach, out of mind out of sight, its not known, it cant be thought about or approached, logic and reason are human inventions and have nothing to do with truth, anything can be real, everything is fake, nothing touches, there is only magic, the universe is a simulation, the universe can be real and magical, the universe can be natural and cause and effect can be avoided.

Cause and effect is nonsense. Anything can happen any time. There are no True principles, there is no True grounding into any truth, any certainty, any knowledge of the absolute true state of reality and possible potential.

Two observers can disagree about simultaneity, welpppp, looks like simultaneous events cant happen in this universe, two observers disagree on something!!?!? wowwowowo, color me surprised, that must say something about fundamental reality and truth right? Not about the observers and their possible motions and methods of what they can possible detect.



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Dianel



Why are you assuming I haven't heard many times and don't know and understand those ideas equally or better than him? I know the 'radical ideas' very well and understand how and why they exist as ideas, which is precisely why I am able to successfully argue against their existence.


Is because you originally came here and asked questions and made statements that show a huge level of ignorance of fundamental physics. This is not an issue, when we are ignorant of something, asking questions is the best way to learn. Now where it falls over is as iv stated before is when you ask follow on questions to questions as though what you are asking is rhetorical. You then get 20 questions deep and you have in a round about way, convinced yourself that only the last maybe 2 or 3 questions you don't know the answers too and the preceeding 10 you already know.

You should also understand that some of us who try to answer questions and help people through their computer seat learning by profession are scientists and engineers with degrees and doctorates. Some of us do have an understanding of the fundamentals of science at the level that science as the state of the art understands it.

What is common and a difficult one to grasp is scientific language which is often very dry, but also very very concise and pedantic. The post that you appear to be very very upset with is actually quite great. And your response in calling it 'flip flopping' or throwing in random statements to me, is that he is actually trying to make you stop, and understand the language that you yourself are trying to use, and often using incorrectly and it is causing what a appears as a great deal of misunderstanding and confusion.

'Nothing' can have many many different meanings and how people conceptualize it is more often than not, wrong or twisted to serve backing up an incorrect postulate.

Example "Matter and Antimatter pop in and out of existence all the time in vacuum"
Firstly it comes from the concept of the uncertainty principle which states that you may 'borrow' x energy as long as it is given back within a small timescale. A concept of how QM tunnelling works... and then sometimes people make the leap and say "We have observed it" (the matter antimatter in vacuum thing)

And the reality is... we have absolutely not observed such a thing, as observing it would be a massive violation of conservation of energy. The process 'in vacuum' is suppressed because 1) Pure vacuum doesn't exist in the lab, 2) A detection device automatically negates there being a vacuum, and introduces magnetic, electric and gravitational fields to the so called 'Nothing' These would prevent the so called 'loop' diagram existing in reality and such it is confined to concept and perturbation theory.

You can thus hopefully see how being able to sit back and breakdown a problem into the fundamentals as we understand them is a little bit more complicated than simple one liners, and why when you ask 20 questions, you get replies to only the first one... and also why the answers sound like scattered ideas, because the answers are NOT SIMPLE.

Eros' eternally correct statement
"A simple answer to a fundamental question is a rarity. Scratch the surface of a simple answer and you will find a squid work under it"

Thats the best I can do with a correct statement...and even then its probably not correct.



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433

Is because you originally came here and asked questions and made statements that show a huge level of ignorance of fundamental physics.


False. I do not believe total human comprehension of the totality of the truth of the actual fundamental physics of reality is absolutely complete.

That is solely the reason I ask the questions I ask, to expose any inconsistencies, misunderstandings, misinterpretations in the statements, beliefs, thinking of those who think they know the Truth of the Fundamental Physics of Reality.

Humankind understanding and knowledge of the fundamental physics of reality = absolutely flawless, complete, void of contradictions, inconsistencies, misinterpretations = I have no questions.

Humankind understanding and knowledge of the fundamental physics of reality = not absolutely flawless, incomplete, not void of contradictions, inconsistencies, misinterpretations = I question those who think they know the current up to date best representative theory of humankinds understanding and knowledge of the fundamental physics of reality.

I do not ask all the questions I do (which then may make you think I have ignorance, because someone with ignorance would ask questions, someone with a lot of ignorance may ask a lot of questions) because I believe those who I am asking will be able to flawlessly answer the absolute perfect truth of the accurate interpretation of the fundamental physics of reality:

I do so to expose any weaknesses in someones knowledge and thinking who thinks they know a great deal about the, and the interpretations, of the fundamental physics of reality, so that what is faulty can be exposed as such, with hopes of directions being highlighted that lack faultyness.

Delbert seems to have a semi significantly fleshed out theory, I attempted to ask him a lot of questions about his theory and thoughts on the fundamental substance and mechanics of fundamental reality, because as much as I am interested in what may be right about it, I am attempting to prod and poke to attempt to discover what may be wrong with it.



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

One last question: Are there masses/types of particles of matter that when accelerated EM radiation does not propagate away from them?

I know there are particles considered to be charged particles, and particles considered to be non charged, and then there is the neutron (which is said to be composed of positive and negative quarks). So it is thought there are non charge particles that exist, and when they are accelerated, EM radiation does not propagate away from them?

Of course this is a severely important line of questioning leading into the why/how this occurs? Of course any child can burp up the word coupling and fingerpaint squiggly magic, but why and how theoretically physically, from a physics, from a fundamental physics stand point, can a field/aether that exists at every point in space not be moved by one particle but moved by another?

The gravity field/aether is moved by all particles of mass, and all particles of mass are moved by it. (and yea there are sayings about massless particles and how they interact and are interacted in relation to it)

So the neutron, composite of quarks, with offsetting positive and negative charge (this may devolve into discussion of what charge even fundamentally means, how the concept of charge makes physical sense, how a proton physically interacts with the EM field and how an electron physically interacts with the EM field, and how a neutron physically interacts with the EM field), do the negative charge quarks in the neutron interact with the EM field?

Do positive and negative charge particles both interact with the EM field?



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Is this thread a contest between mainstream, official physics as taught in universities and the real world of physics as demonstrated by obviously suppressed science that shows itself in "unidentified flying objects"?



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Hi:
I was reading today about LIGO and VIRGO, the article said that a neutron star collision releases gamma rays (photons?). This made me wonder what a black hole collision releases and the article said energy/gravitational waves. What kind of energy is released by a black hole collision? Thank you for this fun site!



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: smokybarnable

The 2 singularities themselves only release energy in the form of gravitational waves when they collide. It equates to a loss of mass between the 2 objects and the final merged object. That mass is transformed into the energy of the gravitational waves.
Now, if one or both singularities had active accretion discs (infalling material) the interaction between the two could increase the electromagnetic output possibly. But I'm really not sure exactly how that scenario would play out. Perhaps someone better educated in the theories could enlighten us.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I have a question about spin. In classical physics, it seems that "spin" was taken quite literally, but now modern QM simply defines spin as angular momentum, while stating that particles don't actually spin. So I have two questions.

1) What does the "spin" of a particle actually look like? Does anyone know?

2) What is the difference between 1/2 spin and 1 spin???


Thanks in advance.

edit on 27-9-2017 by BELIEVERpriest because: typos



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I second these questions, because the answers have never been clearly defined for the layman.



posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: DanielKoenig
Arb has not thought much about this problem (or he is a troll) this situation, so he has concluded the answer is 'magic'. So he has concluded noone can possible work towards reaching a comprehension of the possible solutions of this problem.
Of course anybody who studies physics seriously thinks a great deal about how things actually work.

Here is Arby's eternal truth:
"Everyone should be able to agree on the results of verifiable and repeatable observations and experiments. It doesn't necessarily follow that everyone can agree on how to interpret them so we have varying degrees of success with that".

So I will always come back to what the observations and experiments demonstrate. If you have some additional hypotheses which are not mainstream like your false dichotomy of touch, the next step is to gain experimental evidence to support your hypotheses so you can convince others. If you and/or Delbert Larson hypothesize various forms of aether that's certainly your prerogative but the burden of proof is not really on me to show that aether doesn't exist, and in fact I admit it might be possible but I've just never seen any good evidence for it. So the burden of proof for demonstrating the claimed aether is to show the evidence for it. It may surprise you to learn that just saying "but it must be there to satisfy my logic which dictates how the universe must operate" is not considered proof in scientific circles, or maybe it won't. I know it won't surprise Delbert Larson.

Your doppelganger Imafungi posted this video by Allan Adams, where he explains the angst he and probably most physicists go through upon discovering that human logic doesn't seem to dictate experimental results:




we've built these things out of different materials, using different technologies, using electrons, using neutrons, using bucky-balls, C60, seriously, it's been done. We've done this experiment, and this property does not change. It is persistent. And the thing that's most upsetting to me is that not only do we get the same results independent of what objects we use to run the experiment, we cannot change the probability away from 50-50 at all.

Within experimental tolerances, we cannot change, no matter how we build the boxes, we cannot change the probability by part in 100. 50-50. And to anyone who grew up with determinism from Newton, this should hurt. This should feel wrong. But it's a property of the real world. And our job is going to be to deal with it. Rather, your job is going to be to deal with it, because I went through this already.
He's not so arrogant to say this is any kind of ultimate truth, in fact he posits great rewards for the person who can better explain experimental results than the current mainstream:


If anyone found such a property, fame, notoriety, subverting quantum mechanics, Nobel Prize. People have looked. And there is none that anyone's been able to find.
He's talking about quantum mechanics but I'd say that statement applies equally to aether, if you can demonstrate its existence in experiments in a way that hasn't yet been done there's surely great fame awaiting you, and I don't rule out the possibility of someone doing that, though probably not you since I am not aware of you conducting any actual experiments, but maybe you could propose some.

However relying on human logic to dictate how nature is supposed to behave has not been demonstrated to be completely successful as Allan Adam's comments infer. Look at experiments first, then you can try to use logic to explain them, but beware of inventing things which this fascinating video talks about, how potentially 5 years of work by a team of scientists was quashed in two sentences by Enrico Fermi. They were lacking experimental foundation for their work which didn't surface until perhaps a decade later which then showed Enrico Fermi to be completely right. One of the most important videos to watch I think and I'm just awesomely impressed by how much sway Fermi's simple comment had on the planned ~15 man-years of work, and Freeman Dyson's admission that he may be a mathematical genius but he's not a theoretical physics genius like Fermi:

Freeman Dyson - Fermi's rejection of our work


As an aside and related to my signature this has also been a concern with string theory being worked on for so long without any support from experimental verification. In that Allan Adams video he asks the class to predict the outcome of an experiment and of course they all make the "logical" prediction, and they are all wrong. This is a topic I don't think you've given sufficient thought to since you rely so much on your logic, at least some of which is inconsistent with observation and experiment.



posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: LiberateEarth
Is this thread a contest between mainstream, official physics as taught in universities and the real world of physics as demonstrated by obviously suppressed science that shows itself in "unidentified flying objects"?
That's a leading question if I ever saw one.

I've studied this type of subject extensively, and I've read the claims about the performance of UFOs allegedly defying "known physics" but all these claims which I've heard are word of mouth and overlook a very important scientific fact: Humans are terrible data-taking "devices". There are many known defects in human perception, so if we have nothing more than a verbal account of the known laws of physics being defied, such accounts are not convincing at all to scientists, and rightfully so. To not appreciate this is to not appreciate all the known facets of human misperceptions.

I'll give just one example. Some students made a UFO by attaching a flare to a balloon by means of a string, then launched the balloon. The local TV station started getting UFO reports and they interviewed one credible witness who was a pilot. He said the UFO disappeared with incredible speed and he's never seen anything move that fast, it seemed impossible. Because in this case we know exactly what the UFO was, we can surmise that when he saw the flare burn out, what his mind told him is that the object flew away at incredible speed, for whatever reason, probably because he didn't think it was a flare and didn't think of the object in terms of a flare burning out. Now I'm not suggesting all UFOs are flares, just that human perceptions are fallible.

Neil Tyson explains the UFO issue from a scientist's perspective pretty well here:

Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson on UFOs


What would be interesting is if someone could actually show non-hoaxed video of the "impossible physics" of which you speak though as fakes get better and better it's harder and harder to sort out the fakes, but I've searched for and never found any such video evidence.

Now here's a question for you. The UFO that was the subject of these drawings has finally been identified, do you know what they actually saw?
I do.





top topics



 
75
<< 339  340  341    343  344  345 >>

log in

join