It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

page: 85
61
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 12:54 PM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Ok, just out of curiosity, what exactly is the designed for expansion on the sunlit side of the Burj Kalifa?

You can do some calculations yourself online using this building guide calculator:
www.buildingsguide.com...

Thermal Effects for Steel Buildings & Structures Calculator

Determine Max. Design Temperature Change, Change of Length or Stress as Applicable,
and Max. Length either without or between Expansion Joints

The default maximum summer temperature is 130 degrees F, but that is expected to be adjusted based on locale. Note that you might input a maximum temperature of say 160 degrees F (I'm not sure what the maximum temperature is at that location but it's fairly hot and you'd want to allow for some statistical variance, perhaps some future global warming, and safety margin), but you wouldn't input 1200 degrees F as buildings aren't designed for that temperature. If you did, you'd never get awarded any building design contracts.

I think you're sort of on the right track with the reason we see superluminal expansion without violating relativity, but your explanation and mine too aren't as good as what the experts wrote in that paper, so that's worth reading.

The CNB might never be observed directly. Detecting neutrinos is really difficult.

Thanks. That calculator is a nice resource.

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:55 PM

originally posted by: dragonridr

Do you have any experiment creating a monopole just curious since to my knowledge completely theoretical and oddly you always demand proof when we explain science. However you seem to take take it as fact this theoretical object exists even though science isnt sure because its never been seen anywhere in the universe. Notto mention just the energy to make one is huge it is estimated that the a magnetic monopole would have a mass of about 10^15 GeV, compared to LHC's 10^3 GeV range. I mean even the Higgs was at 125 GeV Range and that was pushing the limits. But in your world a coils with 120 v ac is going to have enough power to create a monopole. If its that easy why arent they all over the place?

I'll gladly admit that my knowledge of magnetics is not as in-depth as others in this thread, so kindly refrain from blasting me, as this is a genuine and related question. I have heard of the system which drives an analog electric meter referred to as a monopole motor. While I know this is not a magnetic monopole, what exactly does that description refer to?

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:05 PM
What if the Fabric of Space is an Inadequate Analogy?

When you think fabric you create conceptual limitations.

Imagine instead that space consist of discreet volumes similar in size to say a proton. Since protons are stable that could indicate that they exist in only one quanta of space. To simplify this let us call these Space Quanta SPQ.

Imagine also that these SPQ have a default time rate (without any mass or gravitational field present) of infinity
Now expand the concept of space quanta SPQ in three dimensions. The SPQ represents the 4th dimension by its rate of time.

Place a mass into this a three dimensional matrix of SPQ. The mass pulls time from the SPQ that are in direct contact with it. Those SPQ in turn pull time from the SPQ that they are in contact with. This produces a gradient in the time rate of the SPQ surrounding a mass. This is the gravitational field.

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:10 PM

originally posted by: pfishy
While I know this is not a magnetic monopole, what exactly does that description refer to?

I've never heard that. Could you be misremembering "homopolar motor"?

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:24 PM

originally posted by: combatmaster

so all the talk about the tower he built that would provide wirelesss electric to the NE..... wats up with that....

fact is.... if the guy invented WiFi electricity back then.... then there is something up that is being covered up!

Seems to be another case of a thorough lack of evidence proving the conspiracy. Homeopathic logic, as it were.

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:49 PM

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: pfishy
While I know this is not a magnetic monopole, what exactly does that description refer to?

I've never heard that. Could you be misremembering "homopolar motor"?

Actually, Bedlam, you are completely right. Glad to see you in this thread. You are always a wonderful source of insight. I was rather impressed by your comments in the nazi nukes thread, to say the least.

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 04:39 PM

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If there was evidence then there wouldnt be much to talk about.... get it?

However if you r referring to the existence of said tower or the realness of said technology then do not doubt as Tesla was not an idiot or a conspiracy theorist. Do your homework and see what is not meant to be seen!

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 04:53 PM

Transmitting power through the air is an awful idea for a number of reasons. Also, power transmission through the air is not WiFi.

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 06:21 PM
Tesla demonstrated several wireless technologies. Those that make sense to use (near-field, low power) like wireless recharging for personal electronic devices, are available. Those that usually don't make sense to use (far-field, high power), we probably won't use very much except in highly specialized applications where efficiency isn't a priority, but since in most high power applications efficiency is a priority, there aren't many such applications. There is ongoing research on what can be done wirelessly at intermediate distances, where most research shows it only makes sense for low power levels due to poor efficiency.

Your post implies there are also other issues, which is correct for far field applications, especially safety. That doesn't seem to be an issue for low power near field applications.

Some of Tesla's demonstrations were somewhat crazy though, like using 20 million volts to light up three light bulbs about 30 meters away.

edit on 23-3-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 11:12 PM

originally posted by: combatmaster

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If there was evidence then there wouldnt be much to talk about.... get it?

However if you r referring to the existence of said tower or the realness of said technology then do not doubt as Tesla was not an idiot or a conspiracy theorist. Do your homework and see what is not meant to be seen!

Again, while I admire your enthusiasm, and by no means contest Tesla's engineering skill, there is actual evidence, cited earlier in this thread, which strongly contests the basis of the common mythos surrounding the man. Stating that, since all available evidence indicates "X", then TPTB must be covering up the truth, "Y", is circular argument and unfortunately has been done to death in every single conspiracy theory, ever. Using a lack of evidence to strengthen a theory, in other words, is like saying that since it's impossible to prove Elvis faked his death it simply must be true.
Please understand, I am absolutely not attacking you personally. Just the flawed line of reasoning you seem to have unfortunately picked up from the conspiracy kooks out there. I would actually LOVE to discuss unrealized applications of Tesla's work with you. He has always been something of an idol of mine. I was only pointing out that the general paths your conversation seemed to want to traverse have been proved to be dead ends, and believing that proves the conspiracy would limit you severely in your quest to expand your knowledge of his theory's potential.

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 11:21 PM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Tesla demonstrated several wireless technologies. Those that make sense to use (near-field, low power) like wireless recharging for personal electronic devices, are available. Those that usually don't make sense to use (far-field, high power), we probably won't use very much except in highly specialized applications where efficiency isn't a priority, but since in most high power applications efficiency is a priority, there aren't many such applications. There is ongoing research on what can be done wirelessly at intermediate distances, where most research shows it only makes sense for low power levels due to poor efficiency.

Your post implies there are also other issues, which is correct for far field applications, especially safety. That doesn't seem to be an issue for low power near field applications.

Some of Tesla's demonstrations were somewhat crazy though, like using 20 million volts to light up three light bulbs about 30 meters away.

If I recall correctly, Tesla's theory of high power long distance energy transmission, in the manner in which he envisioned it, was actually capable of accidental 'reception' for lack of a better term?
In other words, an object or person, under the right conditions, could inadvertently become a harnessing source for the transmissions. Essentially becoming a lightning rod, for lack of a better term. While I have no idea if this ever occurred in reality, I do believe I ran across several references years ago (on paper, in an actual library. That's where homeless people go to wash up sleep) that indicated this was a perfectly reasonable consequence of his particular design.

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 11:34 PM

originally posted by: br0ker
So, water boils at 100 degrees right? If you want to boil a potato it takes 30 minutes. If you put the same size potato in the oven at 100 degrees then it will take alot longer to cook. Explain why and how. Just testing you here

Because
A) The temperature controls in a microwave oven are a long-running prank by industry engineers
B ) Potatoes are notoriously stubborn little creatures and do not appreciate short cuts
C) While it takes raising the average temperature of a quantity of water to 100° to achieve boiling, you can actually achieve considerably higher temperatures in the pot while boiling it.
D) The heat density of a pot of boiling water is effectively much larger than that of a temperature controlled microwave can impart, because microwaves work by exciting water molecules within the potato, and the water acts on the entire substance of the potato.
E) And this is entirely speculation, but as the microwave evaporates water from within the potato, is loses the medium which the microwaves are most effective in acting upon. The water, while not as essential in boiling the potato, also does not evaporate. If anything, the potato absorbs water to the point of saturation, and water is an excellent conductor of heat.
[EDIT: It should be noted that my field of expertise is not even vaguely related to microwave oven theory or application. Therefore, everything in this response is no better than baseless conjecture according to my admittedly limited understanding of the subject matter. With a few logical guesses thrown in for improved flavor and texture.]
edit on 23-3-2015 by pfishy because: Because potatoes

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 11:46 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi
The photon has greater than 0 energy. The photon is not nothing (even though in equation you have set it as being what is equal to 0 mass), the not nothingness that causes the not nothingness of photon to come into existence, must be not nothingness and must come from not nowhere.

That whole no-thing thing you do is yet more proof that visualization or verbalization of the problem has failed you.

Math, my brother, math.

Answer my questions. I have to do that because you are so inane and inept. I have to spell it out for you and be very careful, because the smallest slip of mine will result in your mal function, causing you to pay your attention to minor details that dont have anything to do with the meat and potatoes of the topic.

The photon is something, the photon is not nothing; do you agree? Let me prove you wrong fearful fool.

You are in my trap, and your cognitive dissonance will show.

While part of the entertainment value of this site, admittedly, is the cognitive jousting it affords via conversation, I would be hesitant to assume the concepts you have of Bedlam's grasp of physics are remotely accurate. I'm nobody's personal cheering squad, but I've seen others with far deeper conceptual understandings of the quantum universe force themselves to admit that their ideas fell short after debating him (her). Just saying, you're dealing with a real sharpshooter there.

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 11:53 PM
I think you missed the point of the question because you mentioned microwave ovens. br0ker isn't talking about those but rather conventional ovens. Potatoes actually cook much faster in microwave ovens than either through boiling or baking in a conventional oven.

The answer he is looking for is somewhere in these two related videos, which never actually talk about baking potatoes but they talk about baking a cake and the concept is similar. They also show that people commonly have a lot of misconceptions about heat and temperature so it's a good question to think about and see if you can figure out the answer without it being given directly, though these videos come close to giving it away. It's none of the things you mentioned, but watch these if you can:

When we touch something that is hot or cold, what are we actually sensing? Is it the temperature of the object, or the rate at which heat flows between the object and our hand?

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 06:32 AM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
This subject of general interrelated topics in physics became the topic of another thread where it wasn't the original topic, so I thought it might be a good idea to continue the discussion in this thread where it will be on-topic. Here is the previous thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The current topic is about quantum mechanics (QM), and whether this quantum mechanical model is an accurate representation of reality or not, but you don't have to limit questions to this specific part of physics, you can ask any questions in this thread as long as the topic has something to do with physics.

The scientific consensus is that the QM model makes accurate predictions so it's an effective model.
However there is no scientific consensus about the underlying reality of the model. The most popular interpretation is called the "Copenhagen interpretation", but there are others, some of which are discussed in this video:

Quantum Mechanics (an embarrassment) - Sixty Symbols

I'm not personally a fan of the "Many worlds" interpretation mentioned in that video but even the proponent of that interpretation says the troubling part isn't that scientists don't agree with his favorite, it's that there's no consensus, on ANY of the interpretations.

So as an introduction to this topic of asking questions about physics, I think it's worth noting that as admitted in this video, scientists don't have all the answers and don't claim to. So if your question was, "Which interpretation is correct?", as explained in the video, nobody knows, so not all questions can be answered. We could however discuss things like pros and cons of various options in cases like this.

Some people have the idea that scientists like the implications of QM, but actually it was not accepted with open arms because it doesn't seem compatible with a human sense of logic. One of the founders of quantum mechanics, Erwin Schrodinger said:

www.brainyquote.com...

I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.

Most people don't like it when they first learn about it, because the experimental results don't agree with what we think is logical, so we try different versions of the experiments over and over and over again, and they always give us the same results, consistent with QM but not with our human logic. I think most scientists finally accept the experimental results, and that they cannot be explained classically, but some non-scientists like this man with a background in computer software thinks experiments can be explained classically:

Russ Blake Spring Theory HD

What's funny about that lecture is that Feynman said in his lecture that he won't say the universe is like a ball bearing on a spring, because that's not how it is, but essentially Russ Blake says it's like a ball bearing on a spring. If he can prove it I guess he will get a Nobel prize but physics is a complex subject and he's right about at least one thing, which is that if you don't have a degree in physics, the physics community doesn't take your ideas seriously.

But Blake is wrong if he thinks it's about snobbishness, it's not. The reason is that for people like him to think "outside the box", they first have to know what is "inside the box", and that's what a physics degree gives you. There is a whole lot of experimental evidence for what's inside the box, and people unfamiliar with that come up with ideas to solve problems without knowing about experiments that already falsify these ideas.

In spite of his lack of physics degree, the first 10 minutes of the video explaining all the problems with modern physics is actually a fairly accurate description of the major unsolved problems. He would be a hero if he solved even one of them, and apparently he thinks his classical solution solves all of them!?

There's food for thought to get you thinking. Feel free now to ask any physics questions, and hopefully some of the people on ATS who know physics can help answer them.

Ok, I have a question for you.
Bearden departs Seattle,WA via train heading east at 120 mph. Hoagland departs Bangor, MA via inertialess Reptilian hovercraft heading west at .00000009 C. A plasma bolt discharge from the moon vaporizes them both in Duluth, MN. How many days off does the Grand Universal Consciousness give the black hole at the heart of our Electric Sun to mourn the loss of the flower in the train conductor's lapel?
(EDIT: YES, EXTREMELY TONGUE-IN-CHEEK. Nonetheless, I think it sums up rather nicely a good deal of the basis of the questions that have been asked here already)
edit on 24-3-2015 by pfishy because: Besause, ya know, the economy and stuff.

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 06:37 AM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I think you missed the point of the question because you mentioned microwave ovens. br0ker isn't talking about those but rather conventional ovens. Potatoes actually cook much faster in microwave ovens than either through boiling or baking in a conventional oven.

The answer he is looking for is somewhere in these two related videos, which never actually talk about baking potatoes but they talk about baking a cake and the concept is similar. They also show that people commonly have a lot of misconceptions about heat and temperature so it's a good question to think about and see if you can figure out the answer without it being given directly, though these videos come close to giving it away. It's none of the things you mentioned, but watch these if you can:

When we touch something that is hot or cold, what are we actually sensing? Is it the temperature of the object, or the rate at which heat flows between the object and our hand?

You're absolutely right. Not sure where I read 'microwave' into that. But I would think that my statement still has merit if you do indeed use the temperature control setting that microwave ovens at least used to have. I honestly haven't attempted to use that function in so long I couldn't honestly tell you if my current one can even do it. But at a temperature setting, in a microwave, of 100°C, I still think the pot of boiling water would win.

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 06:53 AM
I never found the temperature sensors in microwave ovens to be reliable.

So did you ever figure out the answer to br0ker's question? Watch the videos?
Microwaves short-circuit the fundamental physics at the root of br0ker's question, and use some different physics which is interesting on its own. But I haven't seen anybody answer br0ker's question yet about why baking potatoes at a higher temperature takes longer than boiling them at a lower temperature. Seems almost counter-intuitive. Wouldn't you expect cook time to be shorter at the higher temperature or if not, why not?

I know the answer, but it's no fun if I just blurt it out, it's more fun to let people think about the answer, and they learn more that way.
edit on 24-3-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:16 AM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I never found the temperature sensors in microwave ovens to be reliable.

So did you ever figure out the answer to br0ker's question? Watch the videos?
Microwaves short-circuit the fundamental physics at the root of br0ker's question, and use some different physics which is interesting on its own. But I haven't seen anybody answer br0ker's question yet about why baking potatoes at a higher temperature takes longer than boiling them at a lower temperature. Seems almost counter-intuitive. Wouldn't you expect cook time to be shorter at the higher temperature or if not, why not?

I know the answer, but it's no fun if I just blurt it out, it's more fun to let people think about the answer, and they learn more that way.

Unfortunately I'm at work and cannot watch them. But I will gladly hazard a guess and say it has to do with the ability of the medium of each method to conduct and transfer heat to the *alleged* potato. If course, that's assuming you mean potato in the classical sense with regards to GR, and not the quantum foam sense.

But, back on topic. While the air in the oven is at a greater temperature than the boiling water, the water is a good deal denser than the air, and therefore has a higher overall energy density per unit of volume. And since it can pack more heat energy into that volume, and is a far better conductor of that energy, it imparts that energy into the potato much quicker than air.
This is also why spacecraft can encounter highly energetic particles with temperatures in the tens of thousands of degrees in the magnetosphere and not be damaged or annihilated. While individual particles may be energetic enough to be those temperatures, the overall density of the particles is so low that they energy they actually impart to the craft is negligible. Along the same lines, while the LHC is slamming particles into each other at speeds within a few hundred thousandths of a percent of C, the overall energy is comparable to that of two mosquitoes colliding in flight. On an atomic level, it's extreme. On a human level, it's truly minute. All a matter of scale.
And if that's incorrect, I'll truly have to start re-examining the way I perceive the world around me to function.

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:26 AM

originally posted by: pfishy
and is a far better conductor of that energy,
That's the answer but many people interviewed in those videos don't get that until it's explained to them.

while the LHC is slamming particles into each other at speeds within a few hundred thousandths of a percent of C, the overall energy is comparable to that of two mosquitoes colliding in flight.
Is the "overall energy" comparable to two mosquitoes in flight or to 600 sticks of dynamite? I could make arguments for both answers but I'm not sure "overall energy" applies to the lower value.

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:49 AM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: pfishy
and is a far better conductor of that energy,
That's the answer but many people interviewed in those videos don't get that until it's explained to them.

while the LHC is slamming particles into each other at speeds within a few hundred thousandths of a percent of C, the overall energy is comparable to that of two mosquitoes colliding in flight.
Is the "overall energy" comparable to two mosquitoes in flight or to 600 sticks of dynamite? I could make arguments for both answers but I'm not sure "overall energy" applies to the lower value.

relative energy, then? I am aware that the actual particle/particle collision events are extremely energetic, but extreme at an extremely small scale. And 'overall energy' is referring to comparisons I've read for groups of collision events alone. That's not taking into account the remaining energy in the beam of unaffected particles, nor by far the magnetic focal and acceleration fields.
But, as always, I'm extremely happy to learn new things, or correct misconceptions I have. So of you would care to flesh out the 600 sticks of dynamite aspect and what it encompasses I'd be grateful.
Also, I don't think the mosquito reference encompasses the energy released from the splitting protons or the evaporation of the resultant particles.
Just the kinetic energy of the actual proton/proton collisions.
edit on 24-3-2015 by pfishy because: I edit, therefore I am. Or is it all a clever ruse by TPTB?

new topics

top topics

61