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.

 

A controversial new gravity hypothesis has passed its first test

page: 5
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Awesome




posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: bioproab
Awesome
Preston and thank you.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: spectranometron

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: spectranometron

Try and have some relevance to the thread please.
I'm fishing.


Lol!

An honest man - I love it!



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   
It's been a real pain in the ass trying to find the people I need to talk to.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: spectranometron


Sounds like a really cool job


I help a person once with a rather serious problem and in appreciation he taught me everything he knew about physics.

In relation to the subject yes is a potential avenue to explore seriously.

However my background in so far as the subject is not formal but I have a lot of insights into things I learn about.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: spectranometron


Sounds like a really cool job


I help a person once with a rather serious problem and in appreciation he taught me everything he knew about physics.

In relation to the subject yes is a potential avenue to explore seriously.

However my background in so far as the subject is not formal but I have a lot of insights into things I learn about.


thanks, it is a great job, I love it. Any insight is helpful, I utilize perspectives from all avenues. I get a lot of people shutting me out and soon as I use a word from a different set of vocabulary. Please email ***SNIP*** or message on here if your truly interested this is the coolest # ever.
edit on 12/22/2016 by Blaine91555 because: Snipped personal information



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: spectranometron


With regards to inflation the effect itself to a condition related to space-time.

It is possible that the Big Bang was an event that occurred to space-time. The result would constitute packets of space-time that we today call matter. The relationship between space-time and matter-energy in such a case is suspect.

It would mean that the relationship between these two parameters would be inherent and therefore result in inflation due to the conditions of the early Universe.



edit on 22-12-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Further....

www.pbs.org...



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: luthier


Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but did not dark matter become an issue when computer models showed that galaxies like ours could not form, if it were not compensated for by Dark Matter?

Verlinde's hypothesis of gravity is actually really interesting although it places a lot of influence (like in the case of inflation) upon dimensions.

Implying that inflation was inherent in nature given the conditions due to string theory technically.

And by "technically", I mean in so far as we understand.


Dark matter came to be centuries ago philosphically. In astrophysics it was the twenties and early thirties observing anomalies in gravity in clusters regarding visable mass.

I do think this theory is very interesting. I hope I didn't come across as a curmudgeon, it's just a baby theory regarding its testing and some folks may be greatly over estimating the weight this theory has...today.

The cosmological models this theory would bring up will make some applied science guys loose there marbles.

Did you see the macro level superposition expirment. That has to have fixed visable reality people a little nervous.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier


Implied is that there is not clear a difference between objectivity and subjectivity.


Scientists have now observed quantum effects at the macro level, in a laboratory experiment involving entanglement. This is a fairly big deal, not only because of what it tells us about the strange ways matter relates to matter, but because of what technology might come of it, especially with quantum computing:

He doubts that there will be any immediate applications for the technique, partly because the entanglement is very short-lived. “I am not sure where this particular work will go from here,” says Cleland. “I can’t think of a particular use for entanglement that lasts for only a few picoseconds” (10-12 seconds).

But Walmsley is more optimistic. “Diamond could form the basis of a powerful technology for practical quantum information processing,” he says. “The optical properties of diamond make it ideal for producing tiny optical circuits on chips.”


www.theamericanconservative.com...



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Well I approach things more from philosophy than physics so things are never truly set for me. I usually struggle through these papers and then ask physicists how wrong I am with my understanding
.

But philosphy and science need to be together for theory. Cosmology is full of philosphers and the best cosmologist astrophysicists are often both.

The quantum world is so strange that sometimes lab workers just need some input on possible meaning.

Dark matter is not a junk theory though. It may be currently allusive but it certainly has a lot of modelling that works.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier



I learned about some research that went on in the 90''s presenting we had actually split a quark. The resulting emission was called "spray". Because the ejecta's appearance was much like when someone uses and aerosol in a can for any purpose.


I am also aware of an idea that our electron wave function generates an effect upon space-time. For me it is an interesting postulate due to the potential information that with the correct technology could be collected, as in
information about the past or the present.

I find it interesting that we have not considered that Chaos theory is relatable to Quantum Mechanics and the potential energy inherent to the Standard Model.

Our perspective is not an illusion to me but rather a perspective upon an experience that translates effectively.

Just a few thoughts.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

The quark has never been split let alone successfully isolated on its own. The process that occurs is referred to as a jet, or hadronisation, in which a quark that is being separated out of a bound state promotes the creation of a quark/anti quark pair, one of which stays with the original particle, the other, travels with the bound pair. This process as it is high energy often continues, with gluons causing hadron production in a shower like jet.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Neptune was the first dark matter. Orbits of Uranus and other planets had minor deviations from gravitational predictions.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433


Thanks for that. It was a PDF file that was shown to me then but have not seem anything about it since then.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter
Can you please describe dark matter for me based on *any* empirical evidence of its existence?

I'll wait.



originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: luthier

Neptune was the first dark matter. Orbits of Uranus and other planets had minor deviations from gravitational predictions.
Good point, I think that's a valid claim to say Neptune is empirical evidence of what was "dark matter" before the discovery of Neptune. We observed gravitational effects which were attributed to some then unknown and not directly detected mass, which was eventually detected directly.

All the exoplanets we have been discovering are likewise baryonic dark matter which was not previously detected, though the methods of exoplanet detection such as gravitational disturbance or transit dimming could also be considered indirect measurements, just as dark matter measurements in galaxy rotation curves and gravitational lensing are indirect measurements. If indirect measurements are not acceptable does this mean that the evidence for exoplanets would also be denied?


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: ErosA433

Thanks for that. It was a PDF file that was shown to me then but have not seem anything about it since then.
No doubt you are mis-remembering what was in the pdf if you are thinking it said something about split quarks. I haven't even seen any fringe claims of that yet.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 08:53 PM
link   
"No doubt you are mis-remembering what was in the pdf if you are thinking it said something about split quarks. I haven't even seen any fringe claims of that yet. "


Perhaps you are projecting and have me confused with someone who gives a dam about you?



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Seriously dude if you want to debate you had better bring your, "A" game.

edit on 23-12-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   
I urge posters her to go over to the thread Ask any question about physics.

Also read this:
en.wikipedia.org...

Gravity may exhibit properties of a 'force' but it is an effect. We will probably never be able to find experiment proof, or direct proof of the existence of a gravitational particle (termed 'the graviton'), though the gravity wave detector gives us new information about that.

To the poster on the first page, about his 90 yo genius grandfather. No physicist will merely say something vague like 'we don't really know'. He'd talk about the equations, the derivation of the gravitational constant, the way relativity was proved, the way we discovered that light follows the geodesic near massive bodies.

Go to a nearby university and take some physics classes if you really are interested. You must have a grasp of the math.

What we don't know or understand is why the 'force' that is calculated is so much weaker than the other fundamental forces, but it's not a matter of 'we just don't know'. We know a lot, but there are still some anomalies (see the wiki page) that need to be solved.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Maverick7

Most physicists would lead an answer with "We dont really know..." then pause and say "But this is what we do know..."



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join