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: 53
74
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   
New question,

We keep hearing about how UFO's could be using anti-gravity, but that doesn't explain all the things they are allegedly able to do.....Is it/could it be possible to negate MASS ? .

I'm thinking if an object/Craft had no mass then it would not be affected by gravity, inertia or even the speed of light ???




posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

You said you were an engineer and you cant tell when he is using induction coil as a power source? ill give you a clue write whoever did your scam here but make sure they retest and let us see under the desk. The magnets are useless in this configuration the key is the huge coil of wire and of course the other coil under the desk hes running power through.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: ken10
New question,

We keep hearing about how UFO's could be using anti-gravity, but that doesn't explain all the things they are allegedly able to do.....Is it/could it be possible to negate MASS ? .

I'm thinking if an object/Craft had no mass then it would not be affected by gravity, inertia or even the speed of light ???

If they are real then yes to all



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ken10
New question,

We keep hearing about how UFO's could be using anti-gravity, but that doesn't explain all the things they are allegedly able to do.....Is it/could it be possible to negate MASS ? .

I'm thinking if an object/Craft had no mass then it would not be affected by gravity, inertia or even the speed of light ???



Physics wouldnt rule out this possibility but it would require some yet undiscovered exotic matter. And it would require this mass to be opposite of what regular matter works. But if and big if we could find exotic matter with negative mass than yes its possible.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Nochzwei
Like I said, I tried the experiment and saw no difference, but if I did, the first thing I'd suspect is that since I'm downwind of a busy port running a lot of diesel powered cranes giving off a lot of soot pollution, that some soot had entered my house and formed a soot gradient on the walls, where it's denser closer to the floor and less dense closer to the ceiling.

This might make it possible to observe a difference in brightness of the flashlight experiment, but it would have more to do with the mechanics of soot particle flow which comes in through say electrical outlets or other small leaks, where the soot is likely to deposit on the wall a short distance above the electrical outlet and is less likely to travel all the way up the wall close to the ceiling.

So, I'm not saying it's impossible to observe a brightness difference. I'm saying that if you do, it would more likely be from a cause like that example, and not from gravitational effects on the flashlight beam.
Nein im talking of a perfectly clean wall with no carbon or oily soot. Heck you can pick up any number of examples like this one of which I have replied to imafungi about fireworks getting brighter when they rise in the sky. another, Now go to a small airport near you at night and get close to the runway and watch the airplanes take off. you will notice the nav lights, beacon and strobes get brighter as the plane lifts into the sky and ascends. Or even, take 2 candles out of a packet, light them, place them in still air, one on the ground floor and one on the ceiling. the one on the ceiling will be brighter

edit on 31-8-2014 by Nochzwei because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



In that one I'd put the batteries in that black thing directly under the light which is the perfect size for a couple of watch batteries.

I'm sure you would, as this is impossible in you theory, right?
what a shame you don't recognise a capacitor.

there is a lot of other videos "debunking" this device...
and like always has happened to other devices in the past,
the replica devices are totally malformation of the original...



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr



You said you were an engineer

did I ??
can you show me where and in which contents ??



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei and dragonridr


Thanks for the replies,

So I think that would be where the answer lies, and linking it to Plasma balls such as Earthquake lights and the Hessdalen lights that appear to defy our laws of physics...and have a similarity to descriptions of UFO's.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur
you are the master of diversion, I give it to you !


Also I don't know how you can explain what happens with three hydrogen atoms versus two without using QM. If you don't need QM to explain it, then explain it without QM.


here is what I've said
first time
the attraction is electric !
or in other words... the potential difference is responsible for gaining kinetic energy.
All simple and no need for QM to explain it !


and the second time
I do not need QM to explain the Casimir Effect
after I was talking about another though experiment

now go back, read, read again and stop fracking around



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   


Earthlings: Take heart for human stupidity is infinite




posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Quote from my previous post cause I think it's kind of been missed...
" Is there in your opinion any way or know physics process that could somehow produce some sort of effect on the surface or inside the structure of a superconductor by means of a voltage spike/disgrace so as to created or allow/facilitate the creation/release of this force or particles.... Or in simple terms could his device be actually creating something never before seen by us cause of conjuncture between a high voltage and as of yet still not properly understood superconductor physics ?  "

BTW.. What did you study to know these things... Chemistry/physics/both...quantum physics or mechanics ?
Also does gravity have a speed or is it's effect instant? Cause I remember reading about some people doing gravity wave propagation speed experiments with something like two long metal wires that acted like a gravity interferometer.
And a tricky question: the universe is expanding into ...? What? Pure nothingness? .. What contains that nothingness ??? Am alien simulation computer? Or its all riding on tortoises all the way down?



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
[Snipped by staff for misquoting a member's statement.]


Or..... You can take a hike and let Arbitrageur answer questions on HIS !!! topic without further interference... If you know so much physics go make a warp drive then come back and brag how much more you know compared to Arbitrageur.. Not like anyone will care, we mere morals that don't know much phisics would just like to continue this awesome topic WITH Arbitrageur answering our questions and amazing us with unheard of tales of the wonders of physics. you can make ruckus somewhere else !!!
edit on 31-8-2014 by Choice777 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/9/14 by JustMike because: False quote of member's statement removed.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Nochzwei
Like I said, I tried the experiment and saw no difference, but if I did, the first thing I'd suspect is that since I'm downwind of a busy port running a lot of diesel powered cranes giving off a lot of soot pollution, that some soot had entered my house and formed a soot gradient on the walls, where it's denser closer to the floor and less dense closer to the ceiling.

This might make it possible to observe a difference in brightness of the flashlight experiment, but it would have more to do with the mechanics of soot particle flow which comes in through say electrical outlets or other small leaks, where the soot is likely to deposit on the wall a short distance above the electrical outlet and is less likely to travel all the way up the wall close to the ceiling.

So, I'm not saying it's impossible to observe a brightness difference. I'm saying that if you do, it would more likely be from a cause like that example, and not from gravitational effects on the flashlight beam.
Nein im talking of a perfectly clean wall with no carbon or oily soot. Heck you can pick up any number of examples like this one of which I have replied to imafungi about fireworks getting brighter when they rise in the sky. another, Now go to a small airport near you at night and get close to the runway and watch the airplanes take off. you will notice the nav lights, beacon and strobes get brighter as the plane lifts into the sky and ascends. Or even, take 2 candles out of a packet, light them, place them in still air, one on the ground floor and one on the ceiling. the one on the ceiling will be brighter


In the candle example are you suggesting the one on the ceiling is influenced 'downward by gravity', so then and/or instead it 'hits the most air particles', which allows it to reach your eye with even just a slightly more detectable radiance.



posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur



In that one I'd put the batteries in that black thing directly under the light which is the perfect size for a couple of watch batteries.

I'm sure you would, as this is impossible in you theory, right?
what a shame you don't recognise a capacitor.

there is a lot of other videos "debunking" this device...
and like always has happened to other devices in the past,
the replica devices are totally malformation of the original...


As you said there are videos debunking this device but yet you choose to believe it anyway. See science cant do that science has to verify results. This is the biggest reason why people like you believe somehow science represses the truth. Problem is its impossible to do think of all the scientists and grad students throughout the world. Any one of them can make a breakthrough and it happens all the time. In fact was just reading one where we now can use quantum entanglement for imaging. We have discovery of new forms of matter we have people that managed to stop and start light. Any one of these would have in the past thought to be impossible problem is with free energy devices is simple. People have been trying for hundreds of years well longer really. And guess what no one has managed to create one now like the videos shown plenty of people are willing to fake one.

If i can give you one piece of advice its dont look for ground breaking science in a YouTube video. People create fakes all the time mostly to see how many people they can fool.Saw one where a guy claimed to create a hover board another a guy claimed he could turn himself invisible with car batteries.



posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Nochzwei
Like I said, I tried the experiment and saw no difference, but if I did, the first thing I'd suspect is that since I'm downwind of a busy port running a lot of diesel powered cranes giving off a lot of soot pollution, that some soot had entered my house and formed a soot gradient on the walls, where it's denser closer to the floor and less dense closer to the ceiling.

This might make it possible to observe a difference in brightness of the flashlight experiment, but it would have more to do with the mechanics of soot particle flow which comes in through say electrical outlets or other small leaks, where the soot is likely to deposit on the wall a short distance above the electrical outlet and is less likely to travel all the way up the wall close to the ceiling.

So, I'm not saying it's impossible to observe a brightness difference. I'm saying that if you do, it would more likely be from a cause like that example, and not from gravitational effects on the flashlight beam.
Nein im talking of a perfectly clean wall with no carbon or oily soot. Heck you can pick up any number of examples like this one of which I have replied to imafungi about fireworks getting brighter when they rise in the sky. another, Now go to a small airport near you at night and get close to the runway and watch the airplanes take off. you will notice the nav lights, beacon and strobes get brighter as the plane lifts into the sky and ascends. Or even, take 2 candles out of a packet, light them, place them in still air, one on the ground floor and one on the ceiling. the one on the ceiling will be brighter


In the candle example are you suggesting the one on the ceiling is influenced 'downward by gravity', so then and/or instead it 'hits the most air particles', which allows it to reach your eye with even just a slightly more detectable radiance.

No I am talking of time dilation which increase as you rise up from the surface of the earth, which affects the freq of light as I mentioned earlier.
edit on 1-9-2014 by Nochzwei because: (no reason given)


Arbitrageur

posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 04:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Are the attractive forces between particles, as displayed in those atomic examples, more;

'particles 'holding' particles'?

Or;

particles having different effects on the local space (melange of fields) which creates geometries and 3d/4d topographies of these space, which either lock particles in place, or repulse them?

If that is what is going on, it seems that that video trying to explain double slit classically, with the silicon bead bouncing on the vibrating liquid surface, may be a very great analogy
It's interesting but I'm not even sure it's that great an analogy, unless Debroglie-Bohm interpretation turns out to be correct, and even in that case it has severe limitations.


more so than 'we are not saying how the field lines physically relate to any kind of real thing that exists in reality', but 'there must be some underlying materilish substanceish structureish thingish thing which is responsible for the interactions between particles
You may want that to be so "logically" but the universe doesn't have to cooperate with your sense of logic. I'm impressed you spend so much time thinking about how say electric force works at a distance, but I just accept that it does and that's the way nature works. I don't have to imagine any "materilish substanceish structureish thingish thing", I see it work, I know it does what it does.

Our brains may have evolved as our ancestors tied vines around the animal they killed so they could drag it back to the village to eat it, so of course it's natural for our brains to think it's logical you can drag something around with vines or something we can physically see. We probably didn't have nearly as much exposure to electric forces. So I don't see it as that odd that our brains would try to invent "materilish substanceish structureish thingish things", as it may be in human nature to do so, but that doesn't mean that's the way nature works. Maybe there's not any "materilish substanceish structureish thingish things" involved. There were direct interaction theories but they've been largely abandoned in facvor of field theories in modern physics:

Action at a distance

various proofs, beginning with that of Dirac have shown that direct interaction theories (under reasonable assumptions) do not admit Lagrangian or Hamiltonian formulations (these are the so-called No Interaction Theorems). Also significant is the measurement and theoretical description of the Lamb shift which strongly suggests that charged particles interact with their own field. Fields, because of these and other difficulties, have been elevated to the fundamental operators in QFT and modern physics has thus largely abandoned direct interaction theory.

==========

originally posted by: ken10
New question,

We keep hearing about how UFO's could be using anti-gravity, but that doesn't explain all the things they are allegedly able to do.....Is it/could it be possible to negate MASS ? .

I'm thinking if an object/Craft had no mass then it would not be affected by gravity, inertia or even the speed of light ???
We keep hearing about physics-defying maneuvers, but have you noticed there are never any videos of such?

It's entirely likely that some aliens know some advanced physics we have no idea about, however, that's pretty low on my list of possible explanations for these observations. Much higher on my list is the key phrase in your question "allegedly able to do". I don't find the allegations credible, and without calling anybody a liar or hoaxer, it's extremely well documented that humans are extremely low accuracy data taking devices. Some people get all huffy and indignant when this is suggested, but there are lots of scientific studies proving this.

Since we aren't exactly sure what causes gravity, then we don't have the basis for saying whether or not it might be negated somehow, and maybe some aliens have that knowledge, but even if they do, I've never found a credible UFO account that makes me think those advanced technology aliens have visited Earth. Like I said, some decent video of the alleged physics defying maneuvers would be nice to have.


originally posted by: ken10
So I think that would be where the answer lies, and linking it to Plasma balls such as Earthquake lights and the Hessdalen lights that appear to defy our laws of physics...and have a similarity to descriptions of UFO's.
Hessdalen lights and Earthquake lights may not be explained, but there's nothing about either one that violates the laws of physics, as would say, a craft going 5000 miles an hour making a right angle turn with no turning radius that would tear the aircraft apart and kill any occupants which would be like bugs splattered on the windshield of a car going 60mph.

In fact there are viable theories for both, though unconfirmed. By the way ball lightning was only recently scientifically confirmed. It's not fully understood but that doesn't mean it defies known physics. It would be more accurate to say it's poorly understood, but it's better understood now after the recent discovery. There's a thread on ATS about it.


originally posted by: KrzYma
there is a lot of other videos "debunking" this device...
and like always has happened to other devices in the past,
the replica devices are totally malformation of the original...


Here's the scenario I imagine:
KrzYma: "Hello electric company? I saw a video of free energy on youtube of free energy and I ordered the parts to build it which will be here tuesday. By Wednesday I should have it built and then I won't need your power so can you send someone out to disconnect it? Yeah I know, there's this guy online called Arby who says it won't work but he believes in that mainstream stuff and those guys don't know everything. Yeah, so go ahead and disconnect it anyway"

Wednesday morning:
KrzYma: "Hello electric company? I called before to have my electricity disconnected today...is there any way I can cancel that? I still don't believe those mainstream guys know anything, but Arby might have been right about this free energy thing being a scam...I can't get it to work".



originally posted by: KrzYma
the attraction is electric !
or in other words... the potential difference is responsible for gaining kinetic energy.
All simple and no need for QM to explain it !
So explain why two hydrogen atoms attract each other and keep the both electrons, and why three hydrogen atoms can't keep all three electrons.

You can't do it and you haven't done it, without QM so stop saying "mo need for QM" if you can't back that up with an explanation of why the third electron isn't kept in H3.

edit on 1-9-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


Arbitrageur

posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 04:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Choice777
Quote from my previous post cause I think it's kind of been missed...
" Is there in your opinion any way or know physics process that could somehow produce some sort of effect on the surface or inside the structure of a superconductor by means of a voltage spike/disgrace so as to created or allow/facilitate the creation/release of this force or particles.... Or in simple terms could his device be actually creating something never before seen by us cause of conjuncture between a high voltage and as of yet still not properly understood superconductor physics ? "

BTW.. What did you study to know these things... Chemistry/physics/both...quantum physics or mechanics ?
I'm not sure I understand the question, but to the extent I do, I suggest reading ErosA433's thread Direct Dark Matter Detection [A review] which is related to that question I think, since it talks about how to find something never before seen. The experiment involved the creation of very sensitive detectors. Now it's not specifically superconductor voltage spikes creating particles they are looking for, but it gives you some insights into the science and engineering involved in running experiments to find things which have never been found before. In your example a new type of detector could be required too but you would have to have some idea of what you were looking for to engineer and build the detectors.


Also does gravity have a speed or is it's effect instant? Cause I remember reading about some people doing gravity wave propagation speed experiments with something like two long metal wires that acted like a gravity interferometer.
Gravity appears to travel at the speed of light. Not sure if it's exactly the speed of light but it's either exactly or pretty close to it. Experiments have too much error to say for sure if it's exactly c.


And a tricky question: the universe is expanding into ...? What? Pure nothingness? .. What contains that nothingness ??? Am alien simulation computer? Or its all riding on tortoises all the way down?
Nobody really knows, and I suppose part of the answer could depend on whether there are multiverses or not. If there are multiverses there could be universes bumping into each other I suppose. Here's an answer on a FAQ site and I agree it's not scientifically answerable since there's no way to observe what's outside the universe:

curious.astro.cornell.edu...

if the universe is infinitely big, then the answer is simply that it isn't expanding into anything; instead, what is happening is that every region of the universe, every distance between every pair of galaxies, is being "stretched", but the overall size of the universe was infinitely big to begin with and continues to remain infinitely big as time goes on, so the universe's size doesn't change, and therefore it doesn't expand into anything. If, on the other hand, the universe has a finite size, then it may be legitimate to claim that there is something "outside of the universe" that the universe is expanding into. However, because we are, by definition, stuck within the space that makes up our universe and have no way to observe anything outside of it, this ceases to be a question that can be answered scientifically. So the answer in that case is that we really don't know what, if anything, the universe is expanding into.



originally posted by: Nochzwei
No I am talking of time dilation which increase as you rise up from the surface of the earth, which affects the freq of light as I mentioned earlier.
You can calculate the difference in time dilation between the floor and the ceiling and it's too miniscule to have an effect observable by humans.

If the ceiling is light colored as most ceilings are, moving the candle closer to the ceiling will cause a lot of light to reflect from the ceiling and this will brighten up the room, more than the candle sitting on the floor, where direct illumination of the floor is partially blocked by the candle itself, so on this basis it's a very flawed experiment if the intent is to detect time dilation. Try to study how the NIST guys measured it, it's a very small effect.

So yes you may see the room more lit up with the candle closer to the ceiling, but this is explainable by physics that has nothing to do with time dilation, and the physics says the time dilation effect would not be noticeable to human observers without special equipment (as at the NIST lab).

edit on 1-9-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


Nochzwei

posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 04:48 AM
link   
I was actually referring to on top of the ceiling and the difference in brightness is perceptible to me, if it a'int to others then
lol maybe I am a vampire of sorts
Though as yet here is no known method to calculate the universes own time dilation as opposed to mans chronometer time dilation.
Though I have another ques:
why does the sun bob up and down and move sideways to and fro while it travels around the centre of the milky way?
a reply to: Arbitrageur


edit on 1-9-2014 by Nochzwei because: (no reason given)


KrzYma

posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

here, something like that..

H2 has 2p+ and 2e- and is oscillating
H3+, and remember


It is stable in the interstellar medium (ISM) due to the low temperature and low density of interstellar space.

so H3+ looks something like this
( + )(-)( + )(-)( + )
slightly juggling chain with no place for another electron

under other circumstances [( + )(-)] can be build much more longer chains and grid like structures, like on the surface of the Sun for example...
however, the grid structure "moves around" a lot and combines into layers,
a lot of movement in it... you call it temperature

I can also tell you why H2 on earth and H3+ in (ISM) if you don't know
edit on 1-9-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)


dragonridr

posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur

here, something like that..

H2 has 2p+ and 2e- and is oscillating
H3+, and remember


It is stable in the interstellar medium (ISM) due to the low temperature and low density of interstellar space.

so H3+ looks something like this
( + )(-)( + )(-)( + )
slightly juggling chain with no place for another electron

under other circumstances [( + )(-)] can be build much more longer chains and grid like structures, like on the surface of the Sun for example...
however, the grid structure "moves around" a lot and combines into layers,
a lot of movement in it... you call it temperature

I can also tell you why H2 on earth and H3+ in (ISM) if you don't know



Yeah thats the point where is the other electron in your explanation?? Thats the point Arb was trying to make and you just tried to gloss over it. Qm can explain it but id be interested in any other theory you have.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
74
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join