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: 355
79
<< 352  353  354    356  357  358 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles
Mythbusters made an episode where they show how lasers are bounced off retroreflectors on the moon, which is a source of reflected light in the sky which you can see. Whether photons are reflected back from the moon or not depends on where exactly on the moon you aim your laser. If aimed at a retroreflector, the reflected photons provide the distance to the moon and help us determine how fast the moon is moving away from the Earth by making repeated measurements over time.



The video explains how an estimated 200,000,000,000,000,000 photons are fired at the moon. When aimed at the lunar highlands, they get no photons back. Then they aim at the retroreflector left on the moon by Apollo 15 and 1-3 photons returned to their detector, so even with the retroreflector, it's a low return rate.

I would guess they more or less assume a vacuum between Earth and the moon, though I suppose the speed through Earth's atmosphere might be a hair lower, but I wouldn't expect that to be much of a correction if they make it at all. The observatory they use like many observatories is on a mountain, and if you wanted to fly a plane much higher the plane would need to be pressurized because the atmosphere is already thinner at mountain peaks.

I don't know what other light sources you have in mind, but the moon is the closest natural object and that doesn't even work without the retroflectors.

If you aim a laser at an object flying through Earth's atmosphere, I think in many places that's a crime and folks in the US can now get up to $10,000 for turning in people who do it, so I wouldn't recommend it, but too many idiots do it, with some thinking they are signaling UFOs or some such crazy nonsense. Some get tracked down and arrested and spend years in prison.

Feds push to punish those behind laser attacks

Whether the intent is malicious or not, with President Barack Obama signed a law in 2012 making it a federal crime to aim a laser pointer at an aircraft. Two years later, the FBI launched a new public awareness campaign on the issue and authorized rewards up to $10,000 to track down anyone responsible.

That's happened a few times, including a 2012 guilty plea from a 49-year-old Orlando man who court documents indicate aimed laser beams at passenger aircraft leaving that central Florida city's airport at least 23 times. His action caused pilots to take evasive maneuvers during takeoff and placed the aircraft in danger during a critical time in flight, officials said.

Adam Gardenhire, 19, got 30 months in federal prison for shining a laser pointer at a plane and police helicopter in 2013. The pilot of a corporate jet was hit in the eye multiple times and had vision problems through the next day, according to court documents.

The next year, a 33-year-old South Carolina man was sentenced to 37 months for aiming a laser pointer "at two news helicopters as they were flying to cover an accident on the interstate," the FBI said.


edit on 2018316 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

thanks for your reply. i was wondering what can you glean about the field around an artificial light source from the reflected photons that you capture



posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Hi. Time for an aetherial update, and also, a question.

Aetherial Update. I now believe I have the aetherial affects understood that lead to the Lorentz force equation. Note however that I've thought I was close for months now, and I thought I had the affects understood several times before, and each time in the past things blew up as I found a flaw shortly after I tried to write up the derivation. This time I'm about half-way into the derivation and no blow-up yet. It might still fail, but it is looking promising. If all goes well I hope to have this all written up and checked by early April. I'll of course let you know either way - whether it works out or if it blows up yet again.

Question. Does anyone know if the general relativity equations could be based on a warping of an aether instead of a warping of space and time? I realize this might be something I need to work out myself, but perhaps someone has already done this. As an analogy, the Lorentz transformations can be understood as coming from an alteration of measuring devices (meter sticks and clocks) rather than an alteration of space and time.



posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

In 1887 adaptive optics correction was probably more cost effective than using a space based telescope.
I imagine the shell panels of moon probes from the Luna program were reflective.
The Germans were bouncing microwaves off the moon back in the 1930's.



posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

imo neither space time or nor aether warps



posted on Apr, 8 2018 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I promised an aether update one way or another by early April. Here it is. My derivation "blew up" several more times over the past month. It still looks rather promising, and I learn more with each erroneous path taken, but much remains to do. In terms of potentials, the Lorentz force has three terms: 1) -q grad phi; 2) q grad' (v dot A); and 3) -q dA/dt. (grad' only operates on A, not v.) The first term has been modeled in draft form for quite a while now, although I only recently discovered and corrected a sign error. After quite a struggle, I believe the third term describes a flow force law: it is a force proportional to the flow of the transverse displacement of the attached aether (A) past an amount of detached aether (q). I thought I was on track to derive the second term several times now, but each time found an error.

I am not totally happy with the new flow force law, as I would expect that it should apply to the total aether displacement - both the transverse (A) and the longitudinal (related to -grad phi). (See my derivation of Maxwell's Eqs., found by clicking here, to see how A and -grad phi relate to aetherial displacement.) A force that results from just the transverse portion seems a bit odd to me. Nonetheless, science always advances in steps, and so I will go with what is working as long as it makes physical sense and is consistent with the model used for the Maxwell Eq. derivation. Perhaps someone else will see what I do not sometime in the future.

Also, no one answered my question last month concerning an aetherial approach to the equations of general relativity. Hyperboles entered in with an opinion, for which I am thankful, but there was no answer as to whether anyone knows of any scientific publication on the matter. I would think that one could argue that gravitational fields alter the aether so that clocks within the aether change their rates and meter sticks change their lengths and possibly curve, and that this effect is what produces Einstein's equations rather than a change in primordial space and time. Such a philosophy could return us to an underlying classical physical model including a luminiferous aether and an absolute simultaneity, which would in turn answer some stubborn perplexing questions. (One such question is in the OP of this most excellent thread which can be answered via instantaneous wave-function collapse, another is the question concerning the Cosmological Constant problem which can be answered via an Absolute Quantum Mechanics.)

Of course it is possible that the above proposition has not been raised because no one else is working on a classical physics alternative to relativity anymore. Classical alternatives have been pretty much dead ever since Eddington's experiment. So perhaps no one ever proposed the rather simple philosophical underpinning for GRT in the paragraph above. It has been glorified that Einstein (by following Hume and Mach) changed the very nature of the way we think about physics, so perhaps the more mundane view expressed above has not even been uttered in the past 100 years. Still, I would find it surprising if no one ever did so. Does anyone know if the paragraph above has ever been discussed in the published literature?



posted on Apr, 8 2018 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: delbertlarson
Also, no one answered my question last month concerning an aetherial approach to the equations of general relativity.
Einstein gave a talk in 1920 about the aether of general relativity and compared that to the Lorentzian aether. His entire talk is well worth reading, but here is an excerpt:

Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein

The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.

What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation.



posted on Apr, 8 2018 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks, Arbitrageur. I will study the link you helpfully provided.



posted on Apr, 8 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hi Arbitrageur, I have read the article on this link that you suggested. I am often struck with what an outstanding writer Einstein was, even though I disagree with many of his conclusions. And as is so often the case, we see him referencing Mach again. Below are some comments on the article.

The article early on has a discussion of an ether which is the one I have undertaken to improve upon. It is the aether of Maxwell. That aether is indeed a physical entity that has mechanical motion of its parts. That aether can be thought of as having a nature that one could attach "small floats" to. That aether can have flows and tension, and in every way is similar to the ponderable bodies we are familiar with. The advance that I have made is to arrive at an aether theory that is not clumsy as it achieves a simple classical derivation of Maxwell's equations. (The clumsy part remaining is the needed physical length contraction and time dilation, but those are of course observations that any theory must deal with in some way.)

Einstein uses the term ether at one point to represent what I call absolute space, and as mentioned by Einstein, that is the space wherein Newton worked. (You may recall a discussion of absolute space from when you assisted with my efforts here.) Einstein's GRT altered that Newtonian absolute space into the relative one of his GRT. I would not have used the term ether to describe either Newton's absolute space nor Einstein's relative space-time, since to me the aether is a ponderable entity, not space and time itself, but that is what Einstein refers to as ether in the article.

Of course, while all of this is quite interesting and I enjoyed the read, it is still unclear if anyone has ever made the point that the equations of GRT might be the result of an aether (a ponderable mechanical aether) that affects clocks and measuring devices in a specific way.



posted on Apr, 8 2018 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: delbertlarson
The article early on has a discussion of an ether which is the one I have undertaken to improve upon. It is the aether of Maxwell. That aether is indeed a physical entity that has mechanical motion of its parts. That aether can be thought of as having a nature that one could attach "small floats" to. That aether can have flows and tension, and in every way is similar to the ponderable bodies we are familiar with.
While I can't claim to understand what you have in mind, I'm sure you noticed that Einstein explained some of the problems with the aether of Maxwell. I think you have posted before about your preference for Lorentzian relativity over the relativity of Einstein, but the aether of Lorentz was quite different from that of Maxwell and solved some problems with the latter. This source explains a little more:

Luminiferous aether

Maxwell himself proposed several mechanical models of aether based on wheels and gears and George FitzGerald even constructed a working model of one of them. These models were non-trivial especially because they had to agree with the fact that the electromagnetic waves are transverse but never longitudinal.

Nevertheless, by this point the mechanical qualities of the aether had become more and more magical: it had to be a fluid in order to fill space, but one that was millions of times more rigid than steel in order to support the high frequencies of light waves.
So your comment about "flow" sounds like something a fluid might do but how can a fluid be millions of times more rigid than steel?


It also had to be massless and without viscosity, otherwise it would visibly affect the orbits of planets. Additionally it appeared it had to be completely transparent, non-dispersive, incompressible, and continuous at a very small scale....

Maxwell noted in the late 1870s that detecting motion relative to this aether should be easy enough – light travelling "along" with the motion of the Earth would have a different speed than light travelling "backward", as they would both be moving against the unmoving aether. Even if the aether had an overall universal flow, changes in position during the day/night cycle, or over the span of seasons, should allow the "drift" to be detected.
So according to Maxwell, his aether should have been measurable, but inability to measure it as Maxwell suggested have led to other ideas about aether, with one physicist claiming modern theoretical physics has aether it but we aren't allowed to call it that:

Quantum Vacuum

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

"...About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say it's "taboo", rather I suspect we avoid referring to too many different concepts as "aether" because referring to different things using the same word can get confusing. Einstein's use of "aether" of general relativity was a reference to properties of empty space according to that theory, and so to is Robert B. Laughlin's reference of "aether" as the quantum vacuum and whatever properties we ascribe to that.



posted on Apr, 9 2018 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Could the aether be dark matter coupled to time?



posted on Apr, 9 2018 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks, Arbitrageur. It is most excellent for me to get actual discussion on my ideas.

As for the flows and aether mass: In my aether model, the primary aether is a solid made up of two components. One has positive mass, the other negative mass. This answers the objection of the small mass of the aether, since combined they have zero mass. The two components are normally attached to one another. However, if sufficient energy is supplied, it is possible to break out small pieces (detach them). Since each piece is connected to a partner piece in the main aether, when we break one away we must of course break its partner away as well. These pieces are identified as charge, and this is then understood as the basis for charge conservation.

Aether broken away from the main body can flow (move through) the main body. By assuming very simple flow laws for that flow, and by assuming the aether is under tension, I have arrived at Maxwell's equations. There are no gears or wheels, it isn't in the least bit clumsy. Just a simple solid with broken-off chunks flowing through it. (The main body is not a fluid - it is a solid, and it supports transverse waves.)

As for an experimental measurement of our motion through the aether, that of course was Michelson Morley, and also of course, if there is a physical length contraction and physical time dilation then we won't see anything that way. If there is only time dilation and no length contraction, then a group velocity equivalent of MM could be done that might find something - but our proposal to do that 25 years ago was rejected soundly by the NSF.

If time is taken to work through my article (available here) I believe everything will be clear. Please note that while it appears there is a lot of math to work through that is because I put in all the intermediate steps in the derivations. (I even provide a review of vector calculus to help the reader.) I have always put in the intermediary steps in my major works. It makes them longer, but that way readers can follow without having to puzzle through to figure out how to get from one equation to the next so the overall time to get through it is far shorter.

Also I wish to note here that while Maxwell, Lorentz and Einstein all dealt with an aether that included Maxwell's Equations, none of them went on to the logical next step which was the Lorentz force equations (LFE). If flowing freed aether and stationary freed aether leads to Maxwell (as I have already shown) then the disturbances we know as electric and magnetic fields should then also influence back upon that freed aether and that should result in the LFE. I tried to derive the LFE 20 years ago, but everything I came up with fell short. I am getting closer now.

Thanks again for discussing this. If there is a flaw in my work I really do want to know about it. Or if there is no flaw and I just need to make things clearer that is important too. But with silence I can never know. So I really do appreciate the fact that you are spending some time with me here.



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 02:59 PM
link   
ok. this is bugging me. I'm watching The Return of the Jedi.

when the second death star blows up its orbiting the forest moon of Endor. the death stars pretty big. wouldnt it have a two fold effect when it blows up?

1. wouldn't the chunks of the death star function like asteroid sized buck shot obliterating the surface of the forest moon facing the death star when it explodes causing all the apocalyptic havoc extinction level events like a massive meteor shower peppering the surface of a planet would incure?

2. wouldnt all the metallic dust from the vaporized bits of the death star go into orbit dimming the sunlight and then start falling out of orbit the larger bits burning up and setting the forests on fire, and the rest of the dust functioning like nuclear fallout and atmospheric choking particulates creating nuclear winter or life ending dust clouds like when super volcanoes erupt and kill everything.

I guess there's an up shot. the damned Ewoks can't come back for a encore...theyre dead baby!.....all of them. ooops.
edit on 5-5-2018 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2018 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdKiller
All this talk of particles. Particle farticle.

Where do particles come from?
Do particles exist in dreams?



YES !

the particles exist in the minds of the physicist only... and as mathematical equations


the whole particle physics science thing is an made up stuff !

there is no photon particle that moves at the speed of light
light do not move, it propagates...

speed of light is one local measured speed and not universal in all Universe ;
edit on 19-5-2018 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2018 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
What the wavelength is, or how it manifests, is simply the energy of the particle. Photons do not have all the same energy.

So photons don't really have a property of colour, they simply have energy. It is this energy which may trigger a reaction with the different cells in our eyes which basically give us sensitivity to the energy. our interpretation of this is... colour.


what is energy ?
is it not the change in movement of an charge particle in respect to all other particles ?
that makes changes in the eather that propagates and affects other particles ?

photons do not exist as a physical entity, it is just a name for the interaction courier.
light do not moves like some particles are moving from one point in space to another ! it propagates...
there is a constant exchange of information inside eather from one point to the next till it reaches the coupled target.

you use the word "energy" a lot, but I think you don't really define what energy really is !

edit on 19-5-2018 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2018 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Photons are legitimate particles alright



posted on May, 20 2018 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma




YES ! the particles exist in the minds of the physicist only... and as mathematical equations


Then what are they doing here??

The Large Hadron Collider

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the world’s largest and most powerful particle accelerator. It first started up on 10 September 2008, and remains the latest addition to CERN’s accelerator complex. The LHC consists of a 27-kilometre ring of superconducting magnets with a number of accelerating structures to boost the energy of the particles along the way.
home.cern...



First LHC test collisions of 2018

Proton slamming has resumed at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Almost a fortnight after the collider began circulating proton beams for the first time in 2018, the machine’s operations team has today steered beams into collision. While these are only test collisions, they are an essential step along the way to serious data taking, which is expected to kick off in early May.
home.cern...




posted on May, 21 2018 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
what is energy ?

According to you there's no such thing as energy. There doesn't seem to be much point in trying to explain energy again when you will just say there's no such thing, like you dismiss a lot of things you don't understand and don't seem to want to understand.


originally posted by: KrzYma
there is no such thing as force or energy... those are just terms used to describe the observable.
The only thing that exist is the change in distance between charged particles in time.
You apparently don't believe in time either and the energy of a photon is related to time so mainstream models are not going to produce satisfactory answers to someone who likes to post electric universe videos from youtube which have no quantitative models with supporting experiments.

Where have you ever used your "model" to make any quantitative predictions? All I remember is you criticizing physicists because they use a lot of math to confirm their models.

Maybe all that math doesn't completely confirm the models are accurate, I'll concede that much, but if you have no math at all, and no experimental predictions with your model then you don't even have a viable alternative for comparison.

Delbert Larson may not agree with mainstream physics, but at least he understands why physicists use quantitative methods in experiments for testing different models, and until you and all the electric universe cranks can understand at least that much, there's not much point in entertaining your non-quantitative alternatives which can't seem to predict anything useful.



posted on May, 21 2018 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
what is energy ?



originally posted by: ErosA433
What the wavelength is, or how it manifests, is simply the energy of the particle. Photons do not have all the same energy.

So photons don't really have a property of colour, they simply have energy. It is this energy which may trigger a reaction with the different cells in our eyes which basically give us sensitivity to the energy. our interpretation of this is... colour.


A small tweak to what ErosA433 has posted: The wavelength is really more akin to the inverse of the magnitude of the momentum than it is to energy. The deBroglie relation p = hbar k relates the wave number k to the momentum p, where hbar is Planck's constant h divided by 2pi. The wave number k has a magnitude of k = 2pi/lamda, where lamda is the wavelength being considered, and k is in the direction of propagation. The Planck-Einstein relation E = hbar-omega relates energy to the frequency f, where omega = 2pi*f. Now for light, E = pc, so you can say that the wavelength is inversely proportional to energy, but for other particles E = [p^2c^2 + m^2c^4]^(1/2), so for other particles the relationship between the wavelength and energy gets complex, while the relationship between wavelength and momentum is still a simple inverse one.

As for whether light is a particle, my view is that individual light quanta are a wave packet. When the wave packet exchanges momentum dp with another entity the wave packet collapses to a size dx = hbar/2dp. This allows the entity to have particle-like characteristics during collisions (like Compton scattering) and yet exhibit wave-like characteristics of interference in other experimental situations.

---

Aether update - Only very miminal progress on the derivation of the Lorentz force equation has been made over the past month. I believe I now have a physical model for all of it, but I've believed that before only to see it evaporate when I attempt the math. Yet each time the math gets further, so perhaps the goal will be reached someday.

Some improvement is appearing in other areas. I see the ABC Preon Model now gets between 7,000 and 50,000 results returned on Google (depending on the day), and I see many more third party sites picking it up. I also saw someone who I don't know state that preon models are becoming seriously considered once again by the HEP community, and the ABC model was mentioned as one of the few serious contenders.

I have just returned from a trip to Brookhaven National Lab (BNL). I am part of a small company doing superconducting magnet research (my role is primarily administrative) and we partner with BNL on the research. While there, I gave a 30 minute talk on "a return to classical physics" which mentioned my work on space and time, preons, the aether, and the new quantum mechanics. The presentation was to a group of physicists, and the reaction was very positive. One sound objection was made, in that I shouldn't call what I am doing "a return to classical physics". The point was made that quantum mechanics was not part of classical physics, yet I am including quantum mechanics in what I propose. Indeed, what I am really proposing is a return to an absolutist and realist physics.

The talk I gave focused on the philosophy of physics, and how the modern physics paradigm of relativism, instrumentalism and quantism replaced the classical paradigm of absolutism, realism and continuism, respectively. While the former solved some of the problems found in the early 20th century, it has led to other problems that exist in physics today. I believe we should instead base physics on absolutism, realism and quantism (perhaps we can call this a neo-classical paradigm?) and I then mentioned how such an approach can yield answers to some of the known problems. I hope to get a video presentation prepared and online before long. If I do, I'll of course let y'all know.



posted on May, 22 2018 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

Glad to know of your talk to physicists. Just wondering what is the name of your company. I have the tech to make room temp superconductors




top topics



 
79
<< 352  353  354    356  357  358 >>

log in

join