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: 45
74
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

The problem is not with me, the problem is you.

I am not satisfied with your little expressions and knowledge, I want thorough generalities, all aspects elucidated, of the object itself. You provide general generalities which only help maintain your bare ignorance. You dont quest, you dont attempt to question or think about how what you are talking about exists, all I am doing is questioning how what you are talking about exists. You ignore all the points I make, just to repeat your same ignorance's over and over, I am questioning your ignorance's. I am asking for further and further intelligence. If you do not have answers, do not respond.

Read what I wrote again in my last responses. You play mind tricks on yourself! You dont know what you are talking about, but you know what you are talking about, you know that you are talking about something, but you dont know what it is that you are talking about. I know this too... but I am trying to find out more and more about what it is that is being talked about. Which is why I am asking questions about the nature of EM radiation, field and electron.

You say, its not a wave, it is a wave, its a particle, its only a wave abstractly, its a frequency, its not a particle, each when it suits your ignorance, and when you need an escape from thinking about a difficult question threatening your lack of knowledge.

Imagine the only thing that exists in reality is a machine that looks like an arm, that has a battery that lasts for 10 seconds, that shakes the arm up and down... and an electron that is in the hand of the arm.

Ok, are you with me? Any objections so far on this thought experiment? I am asking the questions, respect my curiosity, respect my train of thought, board it if you dare, dont say I am making things to complicated, you dont understand the truth, and I am trying to prove that to you, or let you prove that claim of mine wrong, depending on how you answer my questions.

So, you and I are ghosts, watching, this arm device holding an electron between its 'finger tips', and the device will turn on automatically...right.....now.

For 10 seconds the hand moves up and down shaking.

Now, think about this. Before the machine turns on. In what way does EM field exist?

The machine, we would assume correctly, is made of atoms, charged particles, connected to this 'real...fake? em field you speak of', so there are forces throbbing between them.

How are these forces interacting? Is there material, energy? between them?

Are there particles between atoms?

This is the idea of virtual particles.

But you dont admit that there is a real material substance field of particles that exist everywhere, that when a charged particle moves, it moves these, not virtual, but real particles.

the virtual particle excuse is BS. Either matter is or it isnt, either energy is or it isnt. If something exists or is used or appears in view, it must have been somewhere, some how. If something moves, there must be a physical reason it moves. even if you dont know the reasons, that much must be true.


Back to the thought experiment.


Machine turns on, shakes the electron.

Lets focus on the electron, and how EM radiation is being 'emitted' 'propagated' from it/from its actions of movement.

When the electron starts to be shaken up and down, imagine this in very slow motion in your mind, the electron slowly, incrementally, beginning, slow motion, to move up, from its previous relative resting state.

Wow! all of the sudden we see EM radiation propagating away from the electron (in 360 degrees around it?), wow!

Where did it come from!!?!? Where was this SOMETHING THAT EXISTS!!! EM RADIATION IS SOMETHING THAT EXISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EM RADIATION IS SOMETHING THAT IS REAL AND EXISTS!!!!! WHERE WAS IT BEFORE!!!!! JUST BEFORE IT WAS PROPAGATED< WHERE WAS IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT FORM WAS IT IN!!!!!

When electron is accelerated once, EM radiation propagates 360 degrees outward from electron?

is that 1 photon? the 360 circle of EM propagation?

Like dropping a rock into water, the ring that propagates outwards, that is equivalent to 1 photon? in terms of style of quantizing quanta and nothing else.

And here is where you will fail every time, well you will be ruined trying to answer those questions anyway, because you are completely ignorant in regards to the nature of EM, but anyway.

Yes, I know, a simple pond wave of water is composed of billions of particles, atoms!

Is the circle EM wave radiation, with the common center of electron, composed of particles? Is the circle itself, called 1 photon? Or is it composed of many photons? so that when someone detects a small portion of that circle, that is a photon, and someone next to them, detects another, and that is a photon, though it is from the same event of electron acceleration?

If we continue this talk, you are so ruined, your ignorance is astounding. Logic will prevail, only a human can be wrong!


To summarize part of my question.

If an electron is thought of as a material/energetic 'object of sorts' that exists.
And EM radiation is thought of as material/energetic 'object/phenomenon/event/activity/circumstance' that exists.
I am trying to envision the most fundamental relationship of the two, and who they are coupled, and how the activity of the electron, its acceleration, causes EM radiation to appear, and in what way from the cause of this appearance, the EM radiation propagates away from the local area of its creation.
If you think of the electron as sphere like or blob like or at least 'over there' in stead of 'absolutely everywhere', as a means of being able to talk about some local 'thing like thing', then I am wondering if when an electron is accelerated, which is the stated cause of means of EM radiation creation (though yes, charged particle in general), if EM radiation 'spurts' out in one particular degree of direction, like a gun, firing one bullet.
Or if the 'EM field' is coupled to all sides of the electron, and when electron is accelerated, like many guns with many bullets, with the guns handles taped together pointed towards a common center, fire.
Or, if the EM field is such an infinitesimal substance in regards to its coupling to the electron so that it is as if there are nearly infinite gun nozzles forming a circle pointed outwards with the handles pointing to common center point, so when the center is accelerated, the activity produced in the surroundings, is one like an object, coupled to a material/substance/medium' which creates a complete effect that propagates outwards in all degrees surrounding the common central point.
edit on 23-8-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi


In your thought experiment nothing would happen your just changing momentum of an electron not to mention wasting alot of energy to move it up and down. look you are trying to figure out how energy is transferred and how an em wave is created right? Now lets instead of shaking it with your arm we hold it in place with a nucleus. And we allow our electron to roam freely around it .Now lets go ahead and give our atom some energy so will use a laser. And heres a video to explain this part. Now a key part is he explains the emissions spectrum at the end but just remeber what i told you about voids in the double slit.




So if you watched that you can see we can get matter to emit photons basically why we receive energy from the sun. Now photons traveling can do it in a couple of ways depending on frequency they can expand outward like dropping a rock in the middle of a pond more like radio waves or they can be focused like a laser travelling in very tight packets. So what determines what type of em wave propagates depends on its frequency. Lets go back to radio waves Radio waves diminish in strength by the square root law. This is because they spread out as they leave their source. sort of like dropping iodine in water it disperses over a greater volume. Now why are other frequencies different this has to do with there wave guide i tried to explain earlier to you. These packets do not spread out and remain in an excited state unable to lose there energy like radio waves.

Now these waves you can look at them as a vibrating photon or as a packet of energy traveling that has valleys and hills in particular places but it doesnt need anything to move other than momentum.



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Ionized air traveling clockwise inside an iron tube or sphere with a pulsed magnetic field inside switching poles from north to south at a high velocity ,frequency and your on the northern hemisphere, which way will it travel ? At night, what color will it shine ? How fast will it go ? Why does it effect electronics ? Why does it make your body feel strange ? What makes it levitate ? What creates a field on the outside surface ? Why does it reverse direction when ionized air inside goes counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere ? Or am i making this up. Is this physics, i have no idea. I just get pulled to the outside of this large wheel spinning faster and faster. It makes me feel strange, so i must let go and fly off into the grass. Physics of a mary go round. Don't get sick now.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   
What happens when you blow a bubble into a water sphere and spin the sphere in space ? Does it A: Bubble inside water gets pulled to outside of water sphere. OR B: Bubble inside gets pulled to center of inside water sphere. OR C: you cannot blow a bubble in a water sphere in space. Knowing this answer is part of the key to gravity on earth and in space.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 12:37 AM
link   
here is the answer: youtu.be... Take a guess first, without looking at the answer. It may surprise you. It surprised me when i first saw the video.
edit on 24-8-2014 by cloaked4u because: add sentence.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 01:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Thanks for your reply. However the balance of centrifugal and centripetal force is not what keeps the space craft in orbit. The spacecraft is continuously falling towards the earth at the orbital speed, but the curvature of the earth backs away, and this is what keeps the craft in orbit. Though this leads me to another ques, how do they get robotic craft to orbit an asteroid, whose gravity in miniscule?
The curvature of the earth doesn't "back away", it's the shape it is, and "back away" implies some kind of movement. The Earth's rotation is once per 24 hours and the spacecraft might complete an orbit once every 90 minutes so it's fair to say motion of the spacecraft exceeds that of the Earth.

Also it seems you are denying a concept you don't understand, when you say "the balance of centrifugal and centripetal force is not what keeps the space craft in orbit" because you than go on to provide essentially the same explanation, but you call it "falling", perhaps because you don't know that's the result of the "centripetal" acceleration due to gravity.

Thus I can also suspect your denial of relativity is likewise based on not fully understanding what it is you're denying.


I remember mary rose posting somewhere that nobel prizes have been awarded to non peer reviewed sciences, but cannot tell you offhand which ones. Maybe she will chime in here. If what she says is true then peer review by and large a dogma keeping entity.
The Nobel prizes have been awarded for 114 years, and if you examine the history of peer review, it became much more widespread by the middle of the 20th century, which is only 64 years ago, so there's about 50 years before that where peer review was still spreading from medicine into other sciences.

History of Peer Review

Peer review gradually become a standard feature of medical science but did not penetrate widely into science and academics until the 20th Century, becoming a regular institution by the middle of the century.
So this has not much to do with Nobel committees acumen as it does with what practices were widespread during the relevant time period.


originally posted by: cloaked4u
am i making this up.
I don't know, are you?

Is this physics, i have no idea.
Neither do I. The one part I did understand of your question was "pulsed magnetic field inside switching poles from north to south at a high velocity ,frequency", well velocity is usually about the speed of light in a vacuum or slightly less in air, but frequency of AC electricity you use at home is low, like 50/60 Hz in the UK/US. The electrons wiggle back and forth in power lines so their direction changes at the same frequency 50/60 Hz.


originally posted by: cloaked4u
What happens when you blow a bubble into a water sphere and spin the sphere in space ? Does it A: Bubble inside water gets pulled to outside of water sphere. OR B: Bubble inside gets pulled to center of inside water sphere. OR C: you cannot blow a bubble in a water sphere in space. Knowing this answer is part of the key to gravity on earth and in space.
Actually gravity has very little to do with that experiment, in fact it's performed in a microgravity environment to minimize the effects of gravity from Earth. There are gravitational forces between the water molecules, but since gravitational forces are about 100000000000000000000000000000000000000 times weaker than electromagnetic forces on small scales, what you are actually seeing with the water having a spherical shape has more to do with the electromagnetic forces between water molecules which create an effect known as "surface tension". This is the result of water molecules having an electric dipole, as explained on this NASA site about surface tension:


The shape of a water drop is a result of surface tension. Water is composed of molecules consisting of two hydrogen atoms and one atom of oxygen. These molecules attract each other. In the middle of a drop of water, molecules attract each other in all directions so no direction is preferred. On the surface, however, molecules are attracted across the surface and inward. This causes the water to try to pull itself into a shape that has the least surface area possible-the sphere.


The reason the bubble centers better with the water rotating is because the water's inertia tends to move it to the outside of the rotating sphere, forcing the bubble to the interior.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 05:47 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

the guy in the video you've posted says about 1:24
"...forget about the nucleus, forget about the proton..."

and this is the moment everybody should stop watching it and delete it from memory

exiting atoms with EM radiation do not acts ONLY on the electron !!
It transfers energy to both, proton and electron

on the other hand what he is doing, he is explaining the numbers, and the numbers only !
he says nothing about how it works, and he will never be able to, looking only at the electron...

edit on 24-8-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 05:47 AM
link   
..
edit on 24-8-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 06:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Thanks for your reply. However the balance of centrifugal and centripetal force is not what keeps the space craft in orbit. The spacecraft is continuously falling towards the earth at the orbital speed, but the curvature of the earth backs away, and this is what keeps the craft in orbit. Though this leads me to another ques, how do they get robotic craft to orbit an asteroid, whose gravity in miniscule?
The curvature of the earth doesn't "back away", it's the shape it is, and "back away" implies some kind of movement. The Earth's rotation is once per 24 hours and the spacecraft might complete an orbit once every 90 minutes so it's fair to say motion of the spacecraft exceeds that of the Earth.

Also it seems you are denying a concept you don't understand, when you say "the balance of centrifugal and centripetal force is not what keeps the space craft in orbit" because you than go on to provide essentially the same explanation, but you call it "falling", perhaps because you don't know that's the result of the "centripetal" acceleration due to gravity.

Thus I can also suspect your denial of relativity is likewise based on not fully understanding what it is you're denying.

Lol, you do have some failing with the English language. I never implied any movement when I said curvature.
What makes the spacecraft fall towards the earth is g ( same as in a vertical fall ) and not centripetal accel. It is your understanding that is lacking , not mine. When you fire a projectile from the surface it takes a curved path down to earth purely due to g. Ever try to understand what is escape velocity? I guess not.
Again GR is hokum, by my and many others, understanding.
Mary Rose was talking of NP's after the peer review had been implemented, I think



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Its you that fails to understand the balance needed. The astronauts are weightless because the balance between centripetal force and centrifugal force. Gravity provides the centripetal force causing it to move in a circular path while there speed causes centrifugal force trying to move them further out into space. The balance between the two makes the astronauts feel like there is no gravity. But they feel the same amount of gravity you do for the most part there really not that far out into space. Oh and this isnt general relativity newton first figured this out before GR we can use GR to explain it however but not necessary really.


edit on 8/24/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Read my above post, the answers are there. Again nothing to do with centrifugal or centripetal force in a free fall.
a reply to: dragonridr



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Read my above post, the answers are there. Again nothing to do with centrifugal or centripetal force in a free fall.
a reply to: dragonridr



If gravity was the only factor they would crash into the earth if speed was the only factor they would fly off into space of course its a balance. And though the answer may be there seems you dont understand the balance needed.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
Gravity provides the centripetal force causing it to move in a circular path while there speed causes centrifugal force trying to move them further out into space. The balance between the two makes the astronauts feel like there is no gravity. But they feel the same amount of gravity you do for the most part there really not that far out into space.

Technically, the force gravity is pulling the orbiting astronauts straight down toward the center of the Earth. The circular or elliptical motion of the orbit is caused because while gravity is pulling straight down, the orbiting ship also has a "sideways" vector of angular momentum parallel to the surface. The net result of the angular momentum (parallel to the surface) and the force of gravity (perpendicular to the surface) results in the shape of the orbit.

That is to say, an orbit is basically a controlled fall toward Earth. However, the fall never results in a crash into the Earth's surface, because as the spacecraft falls, its sideways motion means it will always miss the spherical Earth as the Earth curves under itself.


edit on 8/24/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Hey mate, its your understanding that is lacking. Read my posts again
a reply to: dragonridr



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
What makes the spacecraft fall towards the earth is g ( same as in a vertical fall ) and not centripetal accel.
Those are the same thing. Centripetal acceleration of a spacecraft in orbit is the result of the gravitational interaction.

Earth orbit

A spacecraft enters orbit when it has enough horizontal velocity for its centripetal acceleration due to gravity to be less than or equal to the centrifugal acceleration due to the horizontal component of its velocity.

edit on 24-8-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
QUESTION

how can it be, that by a collision of electron and positron ( anti electron ) an muon and anti muon are created ??
starts at 11:20 of this video


earlier in this video, starting at 2:30, he said muons are 200 times as heavy as electrons, they are sort of copy of the electron but heavier.

so in analogy of masses, you collide 1 with 1 and get nothing (photon) and after that 200 + 200


all assumptions guesses and believe like he admits at 14:25

at 25:23 you see a guy who has enough of this BS and lives after the speaker talks about electron detector after some another heavy detectors, uranium and led walls and some very strong magnetic fields...

edit on 24-8-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei
What makes the spacecraft fall towards the earth is g ( same as in a vertical fall ) and not centripetal accel.
Those are the same thing. Centripetal acceleration of a spacecraft in orbit is the result of the gravitational interaction.

Earth orbit

A spacecraft enters orbit when it has enough horizontal velocity for its centripetal acceleration due to gravity to be less than or equal to the centrifugal acceleration due to the horizontal component of its velocity.
Heck that quote of yours is all rubbish. Ever wonder why you feel the centrifugal force in a merry go round?
In orbit there is no centrifugal or centripetal force. As far as the spacecraft is concerned it is travelling in a straight line, only gravity makes it fall.
All celestial bodies move in a straight line as I explained above. there is no centrifugal or centripetal force acting on celestial bodies. That is why you can land a spacecraft on an asteroid. There you have learnt something new and you wont find it on wiki as source is me.
edit on 24-8-2014 by Nochzwei because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
QUESTION

how can it be, that by a collision of electron and positron ( anti electron ) an muon and anti muon are created ??
starts at 11:20 of this video


The extra energy to create anything other than gamma comes from kinetic energy. Gammas are produced at rest. This fact makes particle accelerators useful.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

This post KrzYma basically shows me you have zero understanding of the things you call BS.

Smack an electron and positron into each other, you basically generate 2x511KeV in the detector if the electron and positron had zero energy.

However give the electron and positron something like 211MeV split between them and make them collide, you have enough energy to produce a muon and anti-muon pair. It is quite simple you know, general conservation of energy and momentum.

You know, coming down to it, it is not that difficult a concept.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: EasyPleaseMe

originally posted by: KrzYma
QUESTION

how can it be, that by a collision of electron and positron ( anti electron ) an muon and anti muon are created ??
starts at 11:20 of this video


The extra energy to create anything other than gamma comes from kinetic energy. Gammas are produced at rest. This fact makes particle accelerators useful.




I knew E=mc2 will be the argument


ok, lets have a quick look at muons



Muons were discovered by Carl D. Anderson and Seth Neddermeyer at Caltech in 1936, while studying cosmic radiation. Anderson had noticed particles that curved differently from electrons and other known particles when passed through a magnetic field. They were negatively charged but curved less sharply than electrons, but more sharply than protons, for particles of the same velocity. It was assumed that the magnitude of their negative electric charge was equal to that of the electron, and so to account for the difference in curvature,
it was supposed that their mass was greater than an electron but smaller than a proton.


why all those assumptions ?



The muon is an unstable subatomic particle with a mean lifetime of 2.2 µs.



is there any experiment confirming muons charge and mass other than assumptions followed from a theory ??




top topics



 
74
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join