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: 96
74
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


This sounds a lot like Wal Thornhill's pseudoscientific idea about gravity, which doesn't even qualify as fringe because it easily shown false.


is more a mix of anything I select. QM ideas are there too




posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma
So you don't know what pressure is, but you've discarded all mainstream physics models and created your own?

As someone once said, if you want to think outside the box, it helps to know where the box is and what's in it.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur


I only referenced the sun having poles, to imagine a sphere having for our desired reference frame a north and south pole of to our perspective; straight up and down.

And then used that, to reference what would be perpendicular, a 90 degree angle to that up and down.

Then, considering that the sun is ultimately traveling through a gravity field, which may have a similar energy density relationship of 'Sphere" in "rectangular? Square? Sphere? Chaos?" 'gravity field space'.

Regardless. I considered the shape of the gravity field, which would be created by the sun traveling through the gravity field. The indentation the sun makes in the gravity field, is what causes bodies to be unable to avoid escaping the force of the indentation made.

I then wondered, what the arc/shape/geometry of the gravity field would be at the 90 degree angle, perpendicular direction, in accordance to 'straight up and down pole' reference frame.

I then wondered how it would work in the dimension of 'the suns surface area on its tail', tail in accordance to the opposite direction of which the sun is traveling through space (around galactic center).

So the inverse square law.

But what the geometric substance of that inverse square law means.

Considering there is gravity medium, substance.

There is sun, substance.

The sun is traveling through gravity medium.

And this is causing the gravity medium to contort in such a way that;

Another mass added at any of the possible distances from the suns tail

will be forced to travel along with the sun.

This means that the gravity field is a substantial field.

That its own mass, plus (or times) the mass the suns motion relativistically gives it.

Is enough continuous momentous mass, that it can force another mass

To follow the arc of the suns wakes curve



There are 2 ways to look at gravity, as geometry, a space-time curvature that may or may not be able to be quantized or as a force as in one of the fundamental forces. In other words quantized just like the other forces. In that model there are exchange particles (the virtual particles) that mediate the forces and interact with virtual particles from other forces to create an effect.
In the case of gravity, objects with mass would emit gravitons, quanta of the quantum gravity field. The gravitons would interact with particles of all other fields in a way that causes a pull towards the source of the gravitons. Always a pull. The graviton could have an anti-particle, the gravitino that could reverse the effect or maybe just have other opposite features.

In the geometry version (general relativity) mass simply bends space-time. It doesn't define what space-time is exactly because it's a theory of gravity not space-time. We could say space-time is the collection of all the fields plus whatever the heck time is. Here curved space-time holds potential energy that can be used if mass comes into contact with enough of it. So if enough potential energy exists then mass will accelerate through the curved space-time towards the massive object. I'm trying to avoid just saying the mass "falls" through curved space because then the question arises as to why would something fall?

So the potential energy is used and in turn there can be some loss of the planets momentum energy for energy conservation.
edit on 5-4-2015 by joelr because: html



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: KrzYma
So you don't know what pressure is, but you've discarded all mainstream physics models and created your own?

As someone once said, if you want to think outside the box, it helps to know where the box is and what's in it.


I know what pressure is, I told you, the amount of energy in a system that detains atoms from moving, or I say having equal temperature with surrounding atoms. It is what makes solids, liquids and gases having more volume if hotter.
I don't use any imaginary boundary around this to close the system, I don't need to.


You talk about graphs, functions and mathematics, I describe it how I see it,



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   
how would a vortex be created within the earths atmosphere that creates pull?



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: sanitizedinfo
how would a vortex be created within the earths atmosphere that creates pull?


You could put a superdense object like a neutron star in the atmosphere, it's the size of a city with the gravity of a sun.
But it would not stay in the atmosphere it would head towards the center of the Earth and compress the Earth around it down to a thin film of packed neutrons. The rest of the matter would likely convert to different wavelength photons and radiate away in a huge explosion as it was being violently crushed.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: joelr

2 years ago i experienced as i lay in bed, vortexes pulling my arm upwards towards it, it was heard, but not visible. it happened 3-4 times in 5 minutes.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: KrzYma
So you don't know what pressure is, but you've discarded all mainstream physics models and created your own?

As someone once said, if you want to think outside the box, it helps to know where the box is and what's in it.


I know what pressure is, I told you, the amount of energy in a system that detains atoms from moving, or I say having equal temperature with surrounding atoms. It is what makes solids, liquids and gases having more volume if hotter.
I don't use any imaginary boundary around this to close the system, I don't need to.


You talk about graphs, functions and mathematics, I describe it how I see it,


Your answer is wrong it is the amount of energy in a unit. Has nothing to do with preventing anything from moving. And thermal energy increases movement of atoms causing expansion has nothing to do with pressure. If we want to be acurate the coefficient of thermal expansion depends on the anharmonic forces between the atoms.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: sanitizedinfo
how would a vortex be created within the earths atmosphere that creates pull?


You could put a superdense object like a neutron star in the atmosphere, it's the size of a city with the gravity of a sun.
But it would not stay in the atmosphere it would head towards the center of the Earth and compress the Earth around it down to a thin film of packed neutrons. The rest of the matter would likely convert to different wavelength photons and radiate away in a huge explosion as it was being violently crushed.


Got it backwards if a mass the size of the sun popped into out atmosphere the earth would immediately disapear inside of it quicker than we could even describe.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: sanitizedinfo
I read about a vortex ripping off the roof of a house, picking up a bed with a girl who was sleeping in it, and then setting the bed down on the other side of the street, where the girl was unharmed. That type of vortex we commonly call a tornado. There are less powerful types called "Dust devils" that just pull a column of dust up in the air.

Those atmospheric vortices are usually caused by some temperature imbalance that moves a lot of air that starts spinning.

It would be very difficult to create such conditions in a bedroom unless you were doing something like dry ice experiments that could create big temperature differentials, and even then I doubt such small vortices would have that much pull on your arms.

I'd suspect the sensation would be more likely due to something neurological than something physically external. For example there's a neurological trick you can play on your body. Stand in a doorway with your arms at your sides and move your arms out sideways until your hands touch the door frame. Push, and keep pushing for maybe a minute or more. Of course you can't move the door frame but you have to keep trying and push harder. After the minute is up, stop pushing, and move outside the doorway where your arms are free to move. The neurology of some people causes their arms to feel like they lift up by themselves, almost like something is pulling them up, but of course nothing is actually pulling them up, that's just a sensation, that results from the way the nervous system works. You probably had something trigger such a neurological sensation, but I'm not a neurologist so I couldn't tell you what that was.


a reply to: dragonridr
True. The center of mass of the Earth and the neutron star wouldn't move unless it had a reason to. Since the neutron star is probably half a million to a million times more massive than the Earth, the center of mass of the combination of the Earth and the neutron star is pretty close to the center of the neutron star. Maybe not exactly the same, but close enough to sell your description of events.


edit on 5-4-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Apologies if any this has already been brought up. I am a novice at best on physics, but am so very fascinated by it


What are your thoughts on recent predictions of discovering 'mini black holes'? at the LHR? I found it really interesting, especially that the scientists seem to be expecting to eventually find them. I want to believe in multiple dimensions and the idea of a multiverse and it blows my mind to think about it. I always wondered if the Big Bang was somehow the result of matter imploding in another dimension and exploding into our current one, though I have no idea if that is possible.

With regards to the speed of light, what is the impact of the neutrinos discovered at CERN on the scientific community? Does it put the theory that nothing can travel faster than the s.o.l. in jeopardy? Or is the theory so tried and tested that there are no exceptions and there must be a contemporary explanation for this discovery?

What are your thoughts on the emerging 'pseudoscientific' and metaphysical theories like Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance, David Wilcock's take on the Zero Point Field, the law of attraction and similar fringe hypotheses? Do you think that we still have so much to learn that there might actually be something to these theories?

I really enjoy pondering the Universe from the point of view that it is all just software, since it behaves as such. If so, that would mean there is coding/programming in the 'structure' and nature of this dimension, and that these codes/programming can be cracked/reverse engineered...which in essence means anything is possible! Just thinking about this stuff really gets my wheels turning.

Whether it all(life) means something, or means nothing at all in the end, I am so utterly in awe at existence, and feel lucky to be a part of whatever this is.

Sorry if bringing fringe science to the convo offends anyone...I just had to ask someone who is in the know what they thought about it all. Thanks

*I should mention that I do like Rupert Sheldrake(if not only as a person), but though The Source Field Investigations was an absolutely fascinating read, David Wilcock is a complete nutjob/scam artist.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: humanityrising

Ok black holes were not discovered at least yet and neutrinos were shown to move at the speed of light. It was an equipment error gave them erroneous readings. Since neutrinos move at the speed of light not much there to get excited about. Now the discovery of mini black holes on the other hand could be huge. We could learn what our universe is truly made of we know particles of course. But we know there's something hiding below the Planck scale we see its effects. Problem is we don't know what it is.
edit on 4/6/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: humanityrising
What are your thoughts on recent predictions of discovering 'mini black holes'? at the LHR?
To the extent observations like that can prove one hypothesis more correct than another hypothesis, it could be very useful. But then you have an ATS thread where people talk about meeting their twin from a parallel dimension and that's not what the experiment is about. Remember these were predicted before the upgrade too but never observed, but it's possible the upgrade could do the trick.


With regards to the speed of light, what is the impact of the neutrinos discovered at CERN on the scientific community? Does it put the theory that nothing can travel faster than the s.o.l. in jeopardy? Or is the theory so tried and tested that there are no exceptions and there must be a contemporary explanation for this discovery?
We already had observations from SN1987A neutrinos showing that experiment was unlikely to be correct, and of course it was incorrect. The results were merely the result of a faulty connector.

Of course things can and do travel faster than the speed of light, like some shadows, entanglement correlations, light phase velocities, light group velocities, the apparent recessional velocities of distant galaxies, and so on, none of which violate relativity. But the neutrino experiment would have violated relativity since we think they have a small mass. It didn't. We would have had to rewrite a lot of physics if it did.


What are your thoughts on the emerging 'pseudoscientific' and metaphysical theories like Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance, David Wilcock's take on the Zero Point Field, the law of attraction and similar fringe hypotheses? Do you think that we still have so much to learn that there might actually be something to these theories?
Do I think we have a lot to learn? Yes. Do I think those ideas are pseudoscience? Yes. They tell people what they want to hear and sell a lot of books that way but it's not very scientific.


I really enjoy pondering the Universe from the point of view that it is all just software, since it behaves as such. If so, that would mean there is coding/programming in the 'structure' and nature of this dimension, and that these codes/programming can be cracked/reverse engineered...which in essence means anything is possible! Just thinking about this stuff really gets my wheels turning.
J. B. S. Haldane said in 1927 something like not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's probably stranger than we CAN imagine. There seems to be some truth to this so all the more reason we don't need pseudoscience to spice things up; nature can be quite awe-inspiring while looking at her realistically.


Whether it all(life) means something, or means nothing at all in the end, I am so utterly in awe at existence, and feel lucky to be a part of whatever this is.
Many famous scientists have said the same thing.


Sorry if bringing fringe science to the convo offends anyone...I just had to ask someone who is in the know what they thought about it all. Thanks
I recently noted that we can discuss fringe science but pseudoscience is going too far and belongs in another thread. Pseudoscience is that which is already considered falsified, where as fringe hasn't been accepted by the mainstream yet but we can't prove it wrong.


I should mention that I do like Rupert Sheldrake(if not only as a person), but though The Source Field Investigations was an absolutely fascinating read, David Wilcock is a complete nutjob/scam artist.
When someone tells you what you want to hear, that's kind of the idea is that you will like them and their ideas. It doesn't make them true.
edit on 6-4-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Thanks, I didn't realize that the CERN findings were a mistake. Regarding the mini black holes, the articles I read seem to insinuate that the scientists are expecting to find them, as it would support String Theory, but negate a four-dimensional universe model. It would be beyond cool if they are discovered


I'd be interested in understanding why string theory calculations posit a rainbow of dimensions, and, if it turns out there are only four, what alternatives to string theory are most plausible.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I was unaware of the distinction between fringe and pseudo science; I thought up until now they were one and the same. From what I understand, morphic resonance and zero point field are fringe, not pseudo, but I'm no authority. The law of attraction I'm sure is pseudo, though it has worked for me. It's in reality probably just a result of the psychological training, focus, and discipline of the mind involved in 'The Secret' (thppbt) that leads seeing positive outcomes. I like ritual however, because even though there may be nothing metaphysical actually happening, it is a form of focusing on desired results, which in a purely basic way still improves the chances of achieving goals. I definitely want the truth and don't want to be told what I want to hear...unless it is sinful blasphemy of our lord and savior Jesus Christ! (kidding!)

As you said fact really is stranger than fiction, and that is more than awesome to me. With regards to religion and dogma, to me it is just as fascinating if not more to know that I don't have all the answers to life's mysteries. The idea along with not knowing what's on the other side of our inevitable death would cause many to lose sleep, but to me it's an adventure. I know that whatever this is, it's magnificent and divine in its own right.

Thanks for the response, it is food for thought I will be munching on in the coming days



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
Your answer is wrong it is the amount of energy in a unit. Has nothing to do with preventing anything from moving. And thermal energy increases movement of atoms causing expansion has nothing to do with pressure. If we want to be acurate the coefficient of thermal expansion depends on the anharmonic forces between the atoms.


this is your description what's happening and how pressure and temperature becomes two separated but correlated variables.

amount of energy in a unit ? what energy ? kinetic ? potential ?
maybe rather force perpendicular to a surface, the force that prohibits movement.
Temperature is the speed atoms "bounce" of and if too great what makes the bounds break.
Temperature is not the distance atoms move, it's the "collision" interval or the extra acceleration from surrounding atoms, this is where the energy goes to and comes from. Pressure.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 02:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: humanityrising
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I was unaware of the distinction between fringe and pseudo science; I thought up until now they were one and the same.
Sorry I didn't mean to give the impression those terms were that well defined in general, they aren't. Those are the working definitions I'm using to try to keep this thread on topic, which aren't the only possible definitions:

Fringe Science

There are differing definitions of fringe science. Fringe science may be valid science which is not considered mainstream.
That's not the only definition, but for this thread, it's the one I'm using.

Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.
So pseudoscience isn't really science, but fringe science is, the way I'm using the terms.

You can probably find definitions that make them more indistinguishable from each other, and I can't say those definitions are wrong, however I find the above distinction useful for trying to keep this thread about science, and since I authored the thread hopefully I have the latitude to do that.

When you examine the beliefs across a variety of cultures over a period of time, you may get the impression that our brains are wired to make us believe in something greater than ourselves. Before we had modern science the greater things were various deities. Even a century ago it was thought that maybe the Milky way galaxy was the entire universe, as we didn't know what was beyond it.

But now that we have modern science, we can send our imagination on a voyage of visualizing something so much larger than ourselves that our predecessors couldn't have imagined the vastness we have discovered. However, our brains still struggle to cope with these scales. I suppose I can post this inspiring video showing all the different scales of the universe where physics applies without straying too far from the topic of physics:

Cosmic Voyage 8 minute excerpt:



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: humanityrising
a reply to: dragonridr

Thanks, I didn't realize that the CERN findings were a mistake. Regarding the mini black holes, the articles I read seem to insinuate that the scientists are expecting to find them, as it would support String Theory, but negate a four-dimensional universe model. It would be beyond cool if they are discovered


I'd be interested in understanding why string theory calculations posit a rainbow of dimensions, and, if it turns out there are only four, what alternatives to string theory are most plausible.


this is a tough question to convey without doing alot of math but i will attempt to give you at least some understanding. First dimensions arent exactly what most people perceive reading say science fiction. These arent separate universes there all apart of ours. Now me personally im not a big string theory fan in fact regularly have arguments with another professor over this. I accuse string theorists of handing out dimensions any time the math doesnt add up. some string theories have around 32 or so.
But lets look at it from a math perspective they do the math they will get an infinite answer, To prevent the math from being wrong like most would assume they add a dimension this gives more freedom of movement lowering the energy requirements.

In science a "dimension" is just a component of a state vector. For example, one might talk about a 10-dimensional phase-space consisting of 3 components for position, 3 for linear momentum, 3 for angular momentum, and 1 for energy. Or one might have an "event" vector which includes an additional dimension representing time. What most people assume dimensions to be is much like 3 dimensional space its not. For example if there was a 4th dimension being a separate spatial dimension with extra coordinates. This means that the fourth dimension would have to have things move perpendicular and we would see that. Picture a plane with an exact copy of our universe in a plane of existence just off from ours. But we could tell it would show up in something we have been discussing electromagnetism. Not to get into a lot of detail but gravitational or electromagnetic forces will never stay within a plane once disrupted because it is an unstable equilibrium. For a 4th dimension to exist it would have to restore energy lost somehow or it would have to be a different makeup from ours. In other words a replica of our universe made of completely unknown particles. As you can see im not a big fan of spacial dimensions existing like flat land etc. But in string as i said not what they are talking about. Hope i didnt confuse you more and likely to catch a little heat from a couple of string theorists on here nut thats ok ill make them feel better by letting them add another dimension in their math.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: dragonridr
Your answer is wrong it is the amount of energy in a unit. Has nothing to do with preventing anything from moving. And thermal energy increases movement of atoms causing expansion has nothing to do with pressure. If we want to be acurate the coefficient of thermal expansion depends on the anharmonic forces between the atoms.


this is your description what's happening and how pressure and temperature becomes two separated but correlated variables.

amount of energy in a unit ? what energy ? kinetic ? potential ?
maybe rather force perpendicular to a surface, the force that prohibits movement.
Temperature is the speed atoms "bounce" of and if too great what makes the bounds break.
Temperature is not the distance atoms move, it's the "collision" interval or the extra acceleration from surrounding atoms, this is where the energy goes to and comes from. Pressure.



Can be any including potential. heat is energy add energy to a bond it will cause a phase change, like ice melting into water. theres nothing prohibiting movement in fact quite the opposite thermal energy allows greater movement but pressure depending on the context can mean different things. But it always applies to force like cutting wood applying pressure focuses the force. In a gas pressure is the amount of atoms hitting the wall of a container. In deep space pressure is the movement of atoms to an area with lower energy. It is usually more convenient to use pressure rather than force to describe the influences upon fluid behavior. In your situation force is more appropriate since you dont understand pressure,when dealing with particles force restricts movement pressure increases volume.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur
"Of course things can and do travel faster than the speed of light, like some shadows, entanglement correlations, light phase velocities, light group velocities, the apparent recessional velocities of distant galaxies, and so on, none of which violate relativity. But the neutrino experiment would have violated relativity since we think they have a small mass. It didn't. We would have had to rewrite a lot of physics if it did."
That brings to mind a question. At what velocity were the neutrinos observed to travel? Given that we believe them to have a miniscule mass, they cannot have achieved C, so what was the eventual determination?
(There's something fun about being able to call something on the quantum scale comparatively miniscule, even to other particles at that scale. Don't know why I enjoy it, it just makes me grin.)




top topics



 
74
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join