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: 348
79
<< 345  346  347    349  350  351 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   

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

wow the graviational waves travelled faster than light, eh


Granted, the gamma rays from a GRB moves at light speed. However, the afterglow of a GRB follows the GRB -- It does not happen simultaneously with the GRB. The afterglow is caused by the GRB exciting particles around it, so there is a slight lag between the two.

But that's not even the point...

What I said was that LIGO was the FIRST to announce the detection of the gravitational waves caused by the August 2017 neutron star merger (via an automated alert sent out to other astronomers on the team) and only after that did the Fermi observatory announce the detection of the GRB -- and only after that did other teams see the afterglow.

So the first detector to actually announce to the rest of the science coommunty tha the August 2017 event occurred was LIGO. It's not as if LIGO had information about the detection of the Gamma rays or the afterglow, and THEN said it detected gravitational waves -- it was the other way around.

On top of that, the LIGO August 2017 observations were confirmed by the Virgo Gravitational Wave Detector in Europe. That is to say, an independent observatory (Virgo) also detected the gravitational waves detected by LIGO.


edit on 8/11/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

And you fell for all that sheites.
is there a figure for time lag,
sending auto alerts
tasking the telescopes to that part of the sky.
Lol what was the lag for triangulation and how was this trangulation done
Time duration over which gravity waves were continuously detected



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

Pendulum, so what is your problem with that.
And your credentials phd and all dont mean sheites if you have problems with the pendulum. So all you pseudo phd prof, scientists etc. should learn from engineers, otherwise you all will be just useless eaters out of various grants and imo should all be shot



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 03:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles

OK I was 50/50 on you being Savvy/Angelic Ressurection or Nochzwei that post just proved it... for about 3 things you said. Suppose we should specifically learn from the Merchant navy engineers right? If you are going to sign back up to a site that you have been banned from 3 times, you should at least put an effort into changing the words you use and the manner in which you attempt to insult people. Fancy another ban? I am pretty sure that the last time i checked signing back up under a different alias after being banned is against T&C...

So Nochzwei, we scientist do learn from engineers, we learn what is possible to build when we have crazy ideas to build an experiment to investigate fundamental physics. We then work with and push the engineers to build things that they themselves didn't think was feasible at the time.

Want to improve a machines performance by a factor of 2? Hire an Engineer
Want to improve a machines performance by a factor of 10 or more? High an Engineer and a Scientist.


I have no problem with the Pendulum at all, they swing back and forth quite nicely in a manner that can be described as an SHM, they are a compound mechanical object that work very well entirely within a classical Newtonian framework... they don't disprove GR however for reasons that many of us have tried to explain to you... Time does not stop at the L1 and L2 Lagrange points as you have tried to claim. Similarly to how we tried to explain that your anti-gravity box with Garfield stickers is exhibiting thermal expansion that is deflecting the sheet metal sides. Its just a shame that you, as a engineer (apparently), cant understand simple concepts such as thermal expansion and pendulums. Makes me a little concerned for the safety of the rest of the crew onboard those Merchant Navy ships you claim to have worked on...

Also thanks for the personal threat, saying that you think all scientists need to be shot... angry much over being wrong?
edit on 9-11-2017 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-11-2017 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

What kind of allegations are you making?
No you have not learnt any engineering at all since you dont understand the pendulum at all.
Even einstein was a very humble man who said: I have generated the GR math, which I myself dont understand and single experiment can prove it all wrong. Learn from him .
imo you are beyond repair and should just give it all up and become a plumber or something. At least you will then be of some use to soceity.
And no, i am neither wrong or angry.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 03:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: ErosA433

What kind of allegations are you making?
No you have not learnt any engineering at all since you dont understand the pendulum at all.
Even einstein was a very humble man who said: I have generated the GR math, which I myself dont understand and single experiment can prove it all wrong. Learn from him .
imo you are beyond repair and should just give it all up and become a plumber or something. At least you will then be of some use to soceity.
And no, i am neither wrong or angry.


Wait, but Einstein by your own words is an idiot right... was a scientist, not an engineer... and do you honestly believe that people didn't think of the pendulum as a test before you? Seriously, wake up, learn some actual science please.

Also on Einsteins words, Citation required
too many people talk rubbish and the amount of things attributed to him is quite amusing. Id not be surprised if he said something humble. Maybe you could learn some basic humility from him too.

haha become a plumber? at least plumbers understand thermal expansion. You really don't understand the pendulum or any of the concepts of GR Nochzwei. Its very clear. Also, read the T&C, signing up after a ban is against it.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 06:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: ErosA433

What kind of allegations are you making?
No you have not learnt any engineering at all since you dont understand the pendulum at all.
Even einstein was a very humble man who said: I have generated the GR math, which I myself dont understand and single experiment can prove it all wrong. Learn from him .
imo you are beyond repair and should just give it all up and become a plumber or something. At least you will then be of some use to soceity.
And no, i am neither wrong or angry.


He never said that and he wasnt humble by any means. What he did say was this




A theory can thus be recognized as erroneous if there is a logical error in its deductions, or as inadequate if a fact is not in agreement with its consequences. But the truth of a theory can never be proven. For one never knows that even in the future no experience will be encountered which contradicts its consequences; and still other systems of thought are always conceivable which are capable of joining together the same given facts.'


Notice how you twisted what was said he made a statement on how science works and you made it seem he claimed he didnt understand.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Bravo, i was expecting you to show up and say something stupid like this.
I have quoted einstein verbatim. so stop making crappy things up



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

hey hombre, you are beyond repair just give up and learn some science.
einstein quote i have read on the internet . obviously he was before my time and i couldn't have possibly met him , could i?



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
How have you not been banned again already?



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Total clincher that its the same person. Same labels, same insults, same erroneous reasoning that science of the middle-ages somehow disproves science of the 1900s in a way that no one ever thought because obviously scientists are all idiots compared to everyone else...

Savvy
Angelic Ressurection
Nochzwei
Hyperboles,

Sigh...

Im personally not going to report the account, but, I am a little surprised its not been banned yet.

Wonder what the next account will be called.

Anyway... physics!

Saw a talk on wednesday about cosmic ray ionisation and how it effects cloud formation and the climate. Really super interesting, talking about results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN. Turns out, that they were able to improve the atmospheric models to an incredible amount, modelling atmospheric chemistry and ionisation induced chemistry and large particulate formation.

The end result was that they can, in simulation, reproduce real data that measures atmospheric particulate and gas types across the Earths atmosphere based upon factors like, industrial activities, farming, vegetation, and evolve the model and it out to a high accuracy. In turn it results in that the Earths Climate is only modulated by cosmic ray flux by i think it was 20-30 mK so not a big effect at all.

Oddly though, the model also pointed out that for certain chemistry the Earth is not that far away from weather systems that are controlled by the solar cycle and its effects on shielding cosmic rays. So for example if it was a little father away, from the sun, the atmosphere could show significant changes in chemistry along with the solar cycle.

home.cern...



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Can strong neodymium magnets replace electromagnets in a cyclotron?

And would it be a difference between ring magnets and solid disc magnets ( when placed on top and bottom)


edit on 13-11-2017 by EartOccupant because: rephrasing



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: EartOccupant
Can strong neodymium magnets replace electromagnets in a cyclotron?
At the Superconducting Ring Cyclotron at Riken, the superconducting electromagnets produce 3.8 Tesla and there are no neodymium magnets I know of that can produce that, so unless some more powerful neodymium magnets are created that can produce 3.8 Tesla, they couldn't be a replacement in that machine.

If you wanted to make a cyclotron and had less demanding requirements, you could use permanent magnets instead of electromagnets. Here is a paper discussing a cyclotron mass spectrometer using permanent magnets:

Design of a Compact Permanent Magnet Cyclotron Mass Spectrometer for the Detection and Measurement of Trace Isotopes

Using the permanent magnets instead of electromagnets offers some distinct advantages in things like portability and disadvantages in performance but if the performance with permanent magnets is good enough for the intended use, electromagnets are not required.


And would it be a difference between ring magnets and solid disc magnets ( when placed on top and bottom)
See figure 4 of the cited paper which shows a schematic of the permanent magnet system for the cyclotron.

edit on 20171113 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you, i will study that some more.
And yes, i'm in small scale, and will try permanent magnets first.



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 04:56 AM
link   
a reply to: EartOccupant

The other reason to use electromagnets is how tuneable it is. For something like the LHC there are lots of different acceleration regions, cooling regions (to refocus) etc, in order to actually keep things in place, the magnets need to be able to respond or be tuned to meet the requirements of the beam. Issue with a permeant magnet is that, once you have it, you are more or less stuck with what ever field it produces (unless you demagnetize it in some special way to alter it)



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: EartOccupant

The other reason to use electromagnets is how tuneable it is. For something like the LHC there are lots of different acceleration regions, cooling regions (to refocus) etc, in order to actually keep things in place, the magnets need to be able to respond or be tuned to meet the requirements of the beam.
The LHC uses 50 different types of magnets and they are all electromagnets and there are good reasons for that including the tunability of electromagnets.


Issue with a permeant magnet is that, once you have it, you are more or less stuck with what ever field it produces (unless you demagnetize it in some special way to alter it)
If you fix the distance between the permanent magnet and the point in the device where you need the magnetic field that is true, however the distance wouldn't necessarily have to be fixed in which case you might have tunable permanent magnets. I'd guess if you wanted tunability with permanent magnets you'd need to be able to move them around mechanically, but I don't have access to this full paper (maybe you do?) so I can't see the tunability details.

Concepts of tunable magnets using permanent magnetic material for synchrotron radiation sources

We could make a list of all the reasons electromagnets are used instead, and topping the list would be that the LHC tunnel would need to be maybe 120 km long if using permanent magnets, compared to the existing 27 km long tunnel with electromagnets.

For neodymium specifically, I read that China is the main source and they are limiting exports to make sure they have enough for their own uses so I have to wonder how the neodymium market would react to the added demand for enough neodymium to supply a 120 km-long synchrotron tunnel.


originally posted by: ErosA433
Oddly though, the model also pointed out that for certain chemistry the Earth is not that far away from weather systems that are controlled by the solar cycle and its effects on shielding cosmic rays. So for example if it was a little father away, from the sun, the atmosphere could show significant changes in chemistry along with the solar cycle.

home.cern...
The video at your source to some degree supports the complaint Freeman Dyson made about scientists trying to use climate models to predict the climate when he says we are a long way from having accurate models available. It cites a huge uncertainty in predicting what effect doubling CO2 will have on the Earth's atmospheric temperature which hasn't improved for 35 years, though hopefully the cited research will make some improvement. I may have to dig up that Freeman Dyson video and post it.

That source also left me wondering if human pollution may have other effects besides increasing CO2, like possibly seeding cloud formation which they point out is a key part of the climate model. It talked about biogenic tree vapors forming aerosol particles which can seed clouds but I didn't see the chemical composition of the vapors mentioned so I don't understand this process. The video says the process isn't well understood so maybe nobody really understands it but the CLOUD researchers probably understand it better than I do. I tried to embed the video from your source here:



That mentions the goal of figuring out how cloudy it was in 1750. In my opinion I doubt we will ever know precisely how cloudy it was in 1750 so I'm skeptical about that goal being achieved. That's not to say the research isn't useful, I'm sure it will be, but figuring out how cloudy it was in 1750, seriously?

edit on 20171114 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I wouldn't be surprised if some monasteries or (royal) courts kept those records at the time on a day to day basis.
I did a quick search, but nothing came up

I did find these two sites however, it's a start:

Cliumate history
British Weather from 1700 to 1849



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   
is showing the light to itself for forming energy from velocity like killing god?



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: EartOccupant
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I wouldn't be surprised if some monasteries or (royal) courts kept those records at the time on a day to day basis.
I did a quick search, but nothing came up

I did find these two sites however, it's a start:

Cliumate history
British Weather from 1700 to 1849
There's some interesting information in those sources, however they only highlight how challenging the goal of "normalizing" the climate models to a pre-industrial level is. For example, this entry is interesting:


1752-1840's
According to Lamb, this period (though with a 'lull' from 1783-1802) was "extraordinary for the frequency of explosive volcanic eruptions, which maintained dust veils high in the atmosphere & may have contributed (perhaps significantly) to the reversal of what otherwise would have been a noted climatic recovery from the late 1600's onwards.

By "climactic recovery" I'm assuming that means they were expecting temperatures to return to "normal" after the little ice age but because of all the volcanic activity the "climactic recovery" didn't materialize and temperatures stayed cooler.

So then I looked at the little ice age, and researchers looking at local records can't agree on when it starts or ends because there is so much local variation that it doesn't seem to be a unified global event, which brings us to the main point of the problem with these sources...

Even if old records did give some idea of cloudiness of the UK in 1750, the UK only covers 241,930 square kilometres out of the Earth's total surface of ~150,000,000 square kilometres which is only 0.05% of the Earth's surface, leaving 99.95% of the Earth's surface unaccounted for, and researchers are trying to paint a global picture for global climate models.


originally posted by: Godthief
is showing the light to itself for forming energy from velocity like killing god?
Visible light doesn't react to other visible light in the way that say, a rack of billiard balls reacts to being struck by a billiard ball. Unlike the billiard balls, the "photons" or quanta of light pass right through each other as if the other light wasn't even there.

Physics doesn't have much to say about God, dead, alive, being killed, or otherwise, because God isn't usually posited in a hypothetical form ( or "theory") that physicists can test to confirm or reject as they would any scientific hypothesis. Sean Carroll elaborates on this topic from a physicist's point of view in this video:



edit on 20171116 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Ques:
How does the mass of a spent nuclear fuel rod compare to that of a new one?




top topics



 
79
<< 345  346  347    349  350  351 >>

log in

join