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: 40
74
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol. All of you are topsy turvy just as the MS is.
c = d/t.
Beyond the event horizon, time compression(not dilation), due to enormous gravity, is nearing infinity,
so c=0 and hence light or em wave cannot propagate.
After the big bang, when time slowed down sufficiently, the em wave could propagate and this is the birth of time as we know it.

Hope this will open the eyes of all that embrace gr and think that space is curved or bent.



Lol. All of you are topsy turvy just as the MS is.


not at all !
if you read understanding what I'm saying, you would see I'm trying to use the language of MS to my purpose.



...time compression...

you need to explain this idea, cause I think Time is a flow, so how do you compress it ?
like, if I'm waiting for something it takes for ever, and if I do something interesting times flyers away ?



so c=0 and hence light or em wave cannot propagate


what stops them ?
Einstein said light propagates with a constant speed regardless how fast you move,

Is Einstein wrong ???



After the big bang, when time slowed down sufficiently, the em wave could propagate and this is the birth of time as we know it.

you mean when the time speeded up, so the em wave could propagate, right ?
big mass in one place slower time...

on the other hand...
How could time slow down to give or be a birth to time ?
cause and effect ? time as cause can not be the effect of time
Who is the father ??? just kidding



edit on 16-8-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-8-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: KrzYma

You dont agree with curved space.

How do you think the phenomenon of gravity works?

We have a mass A

We have a mass B

They are in space.

Mass A is 300 times larger than mass B (the numbers dont matter detailedly)

Mass B is consistently rotating around mass A.

Why/how?


I will tell you what I think after I tell you what MS putted in my brain, OK?

after the Big Bang space and matter formed...

ok, I can not do it very well, so let me give you a better example of the explanation...

but please watch it full screen and loud with open eyes///


Godless explanation is this,
gravity is an potential, and what puts matter together is the distance between it.
Like being together is less stress than being apart ( what is true for a marriage
)
All created at the Big Bang, this potential.

yea, difficult to swallow, even for me...




gravity is such a week force compared to electric or magnetic force I just cant believe what they say Black Hole can create...
because of the Coulomb force gravitational collapse can not take place, No Black Holes!

mathematical formulas calculate the G without the Coulomb force as opponent making no sense, and still mass is the only one taken to account for G.

What I'm saying is, this is all BS !!


edit on 16-8-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma


A small mass revolves around a larger mass without either of the masses 'reaching out and touching/grabbing onto the other with their body. How?
edit on 16-8-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Question for Arbi before I forget:

When a single atom absorbs EM radiation, and the 'electron moves up a level', and it can exist in this new manner for some time as a stable atom; How does the nucleus - electron system contain the absorbed EM radiation in its confines?



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: krash661

originally posted by: Nochzwei

a reply to: KrzYma


Hope this will open the eyes of all that embrace gr and think that space is curved or bent.

gp-b
einstein.stanford.edu...
Lol leonard, Read thru my thread on bending or unbending of space and all who have responded to my post.



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Question for Arbi before I forget:

When a single atom absorbs EM radiation, and the 'electron moves up a level', and it can exist in this new manner for some time as a stable atom; How does the nucleus - electron system contain the absorbed EM radiation in its confines?


Ok an atom can store energy in their electron orbital motion.When an electron is moved to an upper orbit in atom, energy is stored meaning the electron is moving faster. When that energy is released when the electron returns to a lower orbit. We see the released energy as light, X-ray, etc. So lets take Sodium it has an atomic weight of 11 if we excited it would still have the same amount of electrons but a different configuration it would normally be 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s1 if its had extra energy we see it as 1s2 2s2 2p6 3p1.

Now to explain orbitals id suggest here if your unfamiliar. But bottom line is added energy allows an electron to be further away in its orbit. And a ground state is as low as it can get in an orbit.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
Ok an atom can store energy in their electron orbital motion.When an electron is moved to an upper orbit in atom, energy is stored meaning the electron is moving faster. When that energy is released when the electron returns to a lower orbit.

en.wikipedia.org...
Yes, and as that link says:


an electron always tends to fall to the lowest possible energy state.
So, in answer to this question:


originally posted by: ImaFungi
Question for Arbi before I forget:

When a single atom absorbs EM radiation, and the 'electron moves up a level', and it can exist in this new manner for some time as a stable atom
It depends on how you define "stable", but generally what that quote above says "an electron always tends to fall to the lowest possible energy state" is true, so if it's not at the lowest energy state possible, it's trying to get there, so I don't think it's that stable. If the atom is receiving a lot of energy, the electrons are probably going to jump back and forth between orbitals.

I know you like to visualize things with simple analogies and I like this analogy by professor McBride at Yale. It's a full lecture, but you only need to watch about 2 minutes to get the idea. Start watching from 16 minutes to 17 minutes to see what he's doing, and notice he gets 8 nodes.



Skip to 20 minutes and see the chart at the top showing 4, 6, 8 and 10 nodes, and all the other patterns below. The three minutes to 23:16 are optional, but if you don't have time for those, skip to 23:16 where he discusses how this analogy apples to electron orbitals.

If you want to keep watching, the math starts around 24 minutes which is a little boring but maybe slightly less boring than reading the wiki article dragonridr posted, so you can decide if you're interested in watching that part.
edit on 16-8-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Question for Arbi before I forget:

When a single atom absorbs EM radiation, and the 'electron moves up a level', and it can exist in this new manner for some time as a stable atom; How does the nucleus - electron system contain the absorbed EM radiation in its confines?


Ok an atom can store energy in their electron orbital motion.When an electron is moved to an upper orbit in atom, energy is stored meaning the electron is moving faster. When that energy is released when the electron returns to a lower orbit. We see the released energy as light, X-ray, etc. So lets take Sodium it has an atomic weight of 11 if we excited it would still have the same amount of electrons but a different configuration it would normally be 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s1 if its had extra energy we see it as 1s2 2s2 2p6 3p1.

Now to explain orbitals id suggest here if your unfamiliar. But bottom line is added energy allows an electron to be further away in its orbit. And a ground state is as low as it can get in an orbit.

en.wikipedia.org...


Side question: Does EM radiation only have an effect (meaning cause movement) on electrons, or does it have an effect on protons or neutrons too?

EM radiation causing an electron to move up an energy level, really makes that electron physical travel at a greater velocity? Is it the electrons linear travel around or about the nucleus that is faster, and/or is it the electrons vibrational frequency that speeds up?

And, so... An EM wave is heading toward an atom with an electron in it that is able to become excited. (Is the EM wave bigger or smaller physically than the electron, like in terms of width? In this scenario does the electron usually absorb all the EM wave, or a fraction of it?)

So the EM wave is heading towards the electron, this EM wave is 'something that exists', as in, it is not absolute, complete, pure, nothing.

So the EM wave is heading toward the electron, and than the pico second it starts to touch the electron (right? or does it touch the electrons local EM field (whatever that means)?) is the pico second that real EM that just existed, begins to cease to exist, and instead of a real thing that just existed, continuing to exist, now another real thing that has existed, and continues to exist, is now moving faster?

So, do you assume the EM wave became the electron, physically meshed with it? Do you assume the EM wave became the local EM field that surrounds the electron, in a reinforcement kind of way, the momentum of the EM wave crashed into the electron EM field, and caused it to 'get fatter' which jolted the electron to move faster, and because there was now a greater quantity of energy located near the electron, there was a domino effect of reactions that occurred with the surrounding energy/matter topography, mainly squeezing an electron out, because there was too much energy now to contain it in the space it occupied? But then, the electron cant hold onto that newly fattened local EM field that surrounds it, so it pushed it out again, which equals the original EM wave that it pulled in, and thus, the electron is sucked back into that energy state, it is now allowed to occupy.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 12:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

The basic answer to your question is thermal radiation.Heat is transferred from one object to another. Thermal radiation is the emission of electromagnetic waves from all matter that has a temperature greater than absolute zero. All matter with any temperature above absolute zero interact with each other. The universe always tries to balance out energy to create an equilibrium.An energy transfer is heat moving from something hotter to something colder even an electron, the more heat the faster it moves the faster it moves the more energy it has.There are basically three ways heat can transfer thermal energy (Fourier's law), mechanical momentum (Newton's law for fluids), and mass transfer (Fick's laws of diffusion) all three are similar just the method changes. In your electron question heat is transferred by conduction when adjacent atoms vibrate against one another, or as electrons move from one atom to another.


edit on 8/17/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)


(post by krash661 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: KrzYma


A small mass revolves around a larger mass without either of the masses 'reaching out and touching/grabbing onto the other with their body. How?





posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
What if time is not a universal constant and looked at more of as a human constant, which we only have the present to compare to.

When the big bang occurred space/time was infinitely small and has expanded since(I'm assuming a contraction will occur at some later apex point). What if the 4(5) forces are dependent on space/time, some to a higher degree then others i.e. strong gravity/electro, weak dark energy at the big bang and as the universe expands will ultimately end up with weak gravity/electro, strong dark energy.
Big Bang/Expansion/Contraction/Big Bang/Expansion. . .

If time is a human construct and follows the expansion of space, then I am to assume:

1 second ≤ infinity at the initial time of the big bang(these may be vice versa - I always mark it wrong)
1 second ≥ infinity at the apex of expansion into contraction(these may be vice versa - I always mark it wrong)
1 second = 1 second around where we are now, give or take a few million? years

What if all equations that use time as factor have to be increased/reduced according to the size of the relative universe at the point the observation is being made.
This never "looked" right to me(below picture): At the big bang, such rapid inflation, doesn't "look" natural like the rest of the beautifully geometric properties of the universe.


It almost screams there is something wrong, I'm thinking it is our understanding of time and how it works.
But then again I have a laymen's understanding on all this, it's just an idea that floats around my head with all the other ideas.

But simply, if you were to take time out of the equations what would happen? Is that even possible?
edit on 8/17/2014 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnteBellum
What if time is not a universal constant and looked at more of as a human constant, which we only have the present to compare to.
Time is not a universal constant. Astronauts in orbit age at different rates than people on Earth (not significantly for humans, however the time difference for GPS satellites proves to be significant for that system).

The most technologically advanced confirmation of these relativity predictions have been demonstrated in lab experiments by raising or lowering optical atomic clocks by less than one meter and seeing the difference in the passage of time. The same experiments can be done at fairly low relative velocity and have confirmed that time dilation.

We should always question whether the things we think are constant are really constant and a variable speed of light has been considered, but so far no evidence for it has been found, and of course this is related to time since the speed of light is the distance traveled per unit time.

Speed Of Light May Not Be Constant After All, Physicists Say

the amount of time the light takes to cross a given distance should vary as the square root of that distance, though the effect would be very tiny — on the order of 0.05 femtoseconds for every square meter of vacuum. A femtosecond is a millionth of a billionth of a second. (The speed of light has been measured over the last century to high precision, on the order of parts per billion, so it is pretty clear that the effect has to be small.)
So if the speed of light was varying according to this idea the variation has been too small to measure thus far. The point is, we do think about whether or not it's really constant and look for evidence, but even if that idea that it's not constant turned out to be true, it's still fairly constant since the differences are so tiny.


When the big bang occurred space/time was infinitely small and has expanded since(I'm assuming a contraction will occur at some later apex point).
That was assumed to be entirely possible in 1997. With dark energy research published in 1998, the contraction idea seems to have been abandoned since the data suggest that will never happen, though our understanding of dark energy is limited.


But simply, if you were to take time out of the equations what would happen? Is that even possible?
I don't see how it's possible to take it out, and by the way we use time to define distance, so without time you wouldn't have distance either, at least according to our definitions:

www.merriam-webster.com...

Meter: the base unit of length in the International System of Units that is equal to the distance traveled by light in a vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 second


People were skeptical about the idea of cosmic inflation at first, but evidence for it has been mounting.

BICEP2: New Evidence Of Cosmic Inflation!

edit on 17-8-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=18297788]AnteBellum

It almost screams there is something wrong, I'm thinking it is our understanding of time and how it works.
But then again I have a laymen's understanding on all this, it's just an idea that floats around my head with all the other ideas.

But simply, if you were to take time out of the equations what would happen? Is that even possible?
Understanding of time is certainly flawed. Every1 considers that time is what you see in the chronometers.
The universe does not care about man's chronometer time because it has time of its own which makes the universe tick the way it does.
You cannot simply take time out of the equation.
Universes own time is intrinsically coupled to dark matter. They together is the reason for gravity that holds you on the earth.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you,
I was not disputing the effect of inflation just the abruptness it occurred, if you want to call it that. I always believed in the idea that the big bang has occurred many times before, a start and an end that recycles itself indefinitely. It's that conservation of information thing that always stuck in my mind. How could something appear out of nothing and then just keep expanding into infinity eventually. It must make a u-turn and reverse itself or retract back down to another big bang then start over. At least that seems to make the most sense to me.
I've heard of some other hypothesis pertaining to string theory and the multiverse concepts but they all sound a bit 'far out', I tend to sway toward simplicity.
My idea was based on the whole theory that time doesn't work the way we think it does. Being an architect I don't have the correct means to prove or go into it. But if time expands and contracts with relation to the expansion and contraction of the universe, then how do we really know time values were correct at the extreme instances after the big bang occurred. If I were to draw a picture of the representation I placed above in my previous post, I would think it would look more like a point expanding into infinity, then back to a point.
I don't know these things always sparked my interest.
TTYS



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If the universe was rotating, instead of expanding acceleratingly; would the light of a distant galaxy traveling to our right, as we are traveling to our left, appear to be redshifted, which would allow people like you to assume that galaxy is 'moving away from us' (as it would be, though in your case twould be a falsely assumed directional)?



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Is 'time' anything other than 'the movement of energy/matter'?



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi
You asked this before and I didn't understand the first time either. I don't see how rotation of the universe could explain observations, nor do I know how to use the terms "left" and "right" in discussing rotation. Have you got a sketch of your idea?

Did you ever get on one of those rotating rides and notice that nothing else on the ride seems to change distance from you? The ground goes whizzing by, but to measure this effect there would need to be some kind of aether, and in that case the aether would be rushing toward you in your direction of travel, and rushing away from you behind your direction of travel. This is clearly not what we observe in redshift of galaxies, but it is sort of like the dipole we observe in the CMB (cosmic microwave background), so we think we are moving relative to that, as discussed here:

arxiv.org...

The dipole is considered to have a component related to rotation of the Milky Way galaxy, but the movement of the Milky Way itself (at the center) is a larger component.

a reply to: ImaFungi
Velocity is distance per unit time which is one way to describe movement, so while it's closely related to time, it's not time.

edit on 17-8-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

It seems obvious to me we are in a quantum computer that is GENERATING all matter AND ALL PERCIEVED PROPERTIES OF light, gravity , magnetic ,electrical systems of the universe.All atoms are breaking apart into sub-atomic particles that speed off FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT only to return to manifest that atom again.Everthing you see is diapearing and reapearing so fast they cant measure the frequency.So the cat is not in the box until the observer opens and observes, It is possible our brains are in direct comunication with the process that directs the manifistations, In other words it is probable that when we drive down the road there is nothing over the hill until we get there to observe the manifested senario.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: supergravity
The topic of this thread is "Ask any question you want about Physics" and while I don't see a question in there, I have one for you.

What makes you believe that "sub-atomic particles" "speed off FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT"?

I heard about the faster than light neutrino experiment at CERN, but those results were not confirmed (the bad measurements were caused by a faulty connector) and I didn't hear of any other claims like that.

edit on 17-8-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join