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.

 

Donald Trump expected to slash Nasa's climate change budget in favour of sending humans back to the

page: 13
54
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: InachMarbank

Wrong again. Gravity does not cause the acceleration, it's simply the force that causes things to fall.

Downward motion directly towards the source of gravity, in this case he earth, is what causes acceleration. There is no downward motion.




posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: InachMarbank

Wrong again. Gravity does not cause the acceleration, it's simply the force that causes things to fall.

Downward motion directly towards the source of gravity, in this case he earth, is what causes acceleration. There is no downward motion.


Are you saying the closer you get to earth the stronger the gravitational pull? And since, in this example, every second, the object moves a bit further from the earth, that's why you see a gravitational pull that doesn't accelerate, because the move away from earth always offsets it? Is that a correct understanding of your explanation?

And does this mean we can definitively say, gravity is a pull from the earth, not a push from above earth?
edit on 11-12-2016 by InachMarbank because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Double post
edit on 11-12-2016 by InachMarbank because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 03:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: dismanrc
a reply to: intrptr

Not so true. The AF has nuclear rockets already on the book, but the no nukes in space treaty killed them. Look up NERVA project. Nuke powered thrust engines that could go to Mars in weeks.

Nuclear engines are too heavy to get to orbit. Besides lets say they build them there, thats many flights Cost and fuel) to orbit carrying parts. Besides leaving a radioactive wake everywhere like the rovers on Mars and the Voyager probes, they don't land on Mars or lift off from Mars or reenter earths atmosphere after coming home. So multi stages, landers, re-entry vehicles are all still necessary. The same way they went before.

Design concepts and practicality are vastly different things. Heres a pic of nuclear powered jet engines that never go off the ground...

De Tredici photo gallery



Not completely correct.

The US had a fully functional B36 that was nuclear powered and flew it for a few years in testing with the reactor on board. The NERVA progem also had the power to launch from the Earth with a sizable payload wit limited contamination issues. True you would not want to launch next to a city.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: dismanrc
The never landing nuclear deterrent. Teat bed program only. So a reactor did fly, technically

Abandoned for obvious reasons, supplanted by B52 Fail Safe program and ICBMs in Boomer submarines.

All conceptual programs too heavy for space exploration consideration. They do use RTGs in space, and are developing ion engines for deeper missions, still within the solar system, however.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Hello! I would like to see them collect all the space junk in outer space that they ditched up there, and recycle it. Maybe going around the outer orbit and collecting the metal left overs and assembling a new space station with the metal parts on the moon. Reduce reuse recycle.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: frugal

Now that's some frugal thinking!
edit on 12-12-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Oh raymundoko, your explanations seem to clearly say gravity is a pull from earth not a push from above earth, correct?



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: InachMarbank

Do you believe it is a pull, or a push?



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: InachMarbank

Do you believe it is a pull, or a push?


Push.

I found a write up of an experiment that appears to me as solid proof, gravity is a push.

www.gravityforces.com...

I'm still gonna try to re read it a bit more to make double sure I can explain it simply.

Do you believe this experiment confirms gravity is definitively a push?

Or do you still believe gravity is a pull from earth, toward earth?



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: InachMarbank

His experiment is wrong. He is using Newton's second law which does not apply to gravity unless the constant is included in the equation...instead of F=G it should be F=MG as gravity is a constant. This is basic physics since GR took over and Mark Barton explains it simply:


Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Association
Written 12 Oct 2015
Gravity is whatever it happens to be that makes things fall to the earth, and things still fall to the earth, so we'll never say that there's no gravity. It's just that it's no longer considered to be a force that applies via Newton's Second Law, but a curvature of spacetime that acts via the geodesic principle, which is the relativistic equivalent of Newton's First Law.


Beyond that blaring error, he then references a paper which has GLARING mathematical errors in it. That made me research the journal it was published in. Turns out it is a fake Journal with no peer review.

Source

The journal is listed as a PREDATORY journal in that it tries to pass itself off as CSCanada of which it has no affiliation.


In both cases, we recommend that researchers, scientists, and academics avoid doing business with these publishers and journals. Scholars should avoid sending article submissions to them, serving on their editorial boards, reviewing papers for them, or advertising in them. Also, tenure and promotion committees should give extra scrutiny to articles published in these journals, for many of them include instances of research misconduct.


On top of that, the main author: Louis Joseph Rancourt; lists that he only has a BA from University of Ottawa. Their own site does not list a program for physics. They do have a physics department and offer an undergrad program for computational physics and they have an impressive drive for quantum computing. The point being the lead author very likely lacks education in Physics even though he lists himself as a "Experimental Physicist" on researchgate.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 02:23 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: InachMarbank

His experiment is wrong. He is using Newton's second law which does not apply to gravity unless the constant is included in the equation...instead of F=G it should be F=MG as gravity is a constant. This is basic physics since GR took over and Mark Barton explains it simply:


Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Association
Written 12 Oct 2015
Gravity is whatever it happens to be that makes things fall to the earth, and things still fall to the earth, so we'll never say that there's no gravity. It's just that it's no longer considered to be a force that applies via Newton's Second Law, but a curvature of spacetime that acts via the geodesic principle, which is the relativistic equivalent of Newton's First Law.


Beyond that blaring error, he then references a paper which has GLARING mathematical errors in it. That made me research the journal it was published in. Turns out it is a fake Journal with no peer review.

Source

The journal is listed as a PREDATORY journal in that it tries to pass itself off as CSCanada of which it has no affiliation.


In both cases, we recommend that researchers, scientists, and academics avoid doing business with these publishers and journals. Scholars should avoid sending article submissions to them, serving on their editorial boards, reviewing papers for them, or advertising in them. Also, tenure and promotion committees should give extra scrutiny to articles published in these journals, for many of them include instances of research misconduct.


On top of that, the main author: Louis Joseph Rancourt; lists that he only has a BA from University of Ottawa. Their own site does not list a program for physics. They do have a physics department and offer an undergrad program for computational physics and they have an impressive drive for quantum computing. The point being the lead author very likely lacks education in Physics even though he lists himself as a "Experimental Physicist" on researchgate.


If you wish to attack the claim as pseudoscience, perhaps you should focus on the claim that was made, rather than the credentials of the writer.

You hardly need to be a master of Newtonian calculus, or Einstein relativism, to see the basic claim made by the experiment.

If you put light beneath an object, that object increases in weight.

It seems like a pretty interesting claim.

In this instance, it is hypothesized, the light beneath weakens the push from below... so the net push from above increases... the weight increases...

A similar experiment might confirm this.

LASER LEVITATES DIAMOND IN VACUUM:

www.scientificamerican.com...

If the claim of the first experiment is accurate, then I would think enough light ABOVE an object, could create a field where an object could float, or levitate.

Reading the description of the article for the diamond levitation experiment, I cannot clearly find whether or not the lasers were above or below the diamond, so I cannot for sure say it confirms the claim written by Louis Joseph Rancourt, but it seems like it could be related.

Here is the basic mechanics I found written down:
"the researchers use two separate lasers: one to trap the nanodiamond, the other one to excite the nitrogen vacancy center (in the diamond)."

Can you confirm it is a false claim, if you put light beneath an object, its weight increases?
edit on 14-12-2016 by InachMarbank because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: InachMarbank

It clearly says in that article how they levitated the diamond:


Vamivakas and his colleagues use a second laser, with an invisible infrared beam, to produce an electric field that traps the diamond in place.


I also did not attack the authors credentials, I pointed them out. I clearly attacked the content of the article you posted immediately showing they used the wrong equation to come to their conclusion. That should have been enough for you to admit you were mistaken.

Your original link is a guy named Luis Rancourt. He then uses a "paper" to back up his article. That "paper" is his own work. In that "paper" he references an experiment from another "paper." Guess who wrote that paper? Luis Rancourt. You see the issue here? He hasn't actually completed any experiments that have been peer reviewed. He has hypothesized them and written papers so he can use circular references to back up his own papers. The thread between the papers? They are all published through the same predatory journal trying to pass itself off a a legitimate CSCananda affiliate. There is no peer review. He erroneously ruled out electric fields because he used a crystal, but electric fields do not require a conductive material to do their magic...the paper you linked proved that by the levitation of a diamond...which is a crystal.

Now it's time for you to move on. It's more than obvious you need a thread about physics. This has nothing to do with NASA. I will reply to you no more as you are peddling predatory journals and the fake scientists who publish to them.
edit on 14-12-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: InachMarbank

It clearly says in that article how they levitated the diamond:


Vamivakas and his colleagues use a second laser, with an invisible infrared beam, to produce an electric field that traps the diamond in place.


I also did not attack the authors credentials, I pointed them out. I clearly attacked the content of the article you posted immediately showing they used the wrong equation to come to their conclusion. That should have been enough for you to admit you were mistaken.

Your original link is a guy named Luis Rancourt. He then uses a "paper" to back up his article. That "paper" is his own work. In that "paper" he references an experiment from another "paper." Guess who wrote that paper? Luis Rancourt. You see the issue here? He hasn't actually completed any experiments that have been peer reviewed. He has hypothesized them and written papers so he can use circular references to back up his own papers. The thread between the papers? They are all published through the same predatory journal trying to pass itself off a a legitimate CSCananda affiliate. There is no peer review. He erroneously ruled out electric fields because he used a crystal, but electric fields do not require a conductive material to do their magic...the paper you linked proved that by the levitation of a diamond...which is a crystal.

Now it's time for you to move on. It's more than obvious you need a thread about physics. This has nothing to do with NASA. I will reply to you no more as you are peddling predatory journals and the fake scientists who publish to them.


I don't see that you answered the question. Does a laser beam under an object cause the weight of the object to increase?

Also this quote:

"Vamivakas and his colleagues use a second laser, with an invisible infrared beam, to produce an electric field that traps the diamond in place"

It is not clear if the infrared beam is above or below the diamond, or if the diamond is in the exact center of the beam.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
well the B36 had their trials.
\\so did the fusion powered vehicles.
I think they missed that stage when they realised fission power was the way of the past.
I have enough evidence to prove it was so.



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: playswithmachines

Fusion powered vehicles????? Please provide a link...or did you also mean fission?



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join