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.

 

DISCLOSURE: Why doesnt Robert Bigelow launch his own Satellites to capture UFOs on film?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Jackfish28

No I do not like it and its a pain in the arse. I will have to get an Fake owl and put him up there. Its an issue as they can climb up on the stucco walls and screened porch. Then they start chewing on the shingles.




posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Waterglass
2. Do the formulation of ice crystals as videoed from ISS follow the properties of the fibonacci sequence as they do on earth?
I've seen you post a bunch of links and quotes, but I haven't been able to tell if you finally figured out that the "formulation" of ice crystals is not based on the Fibonacci sequence. If you still think that's the case, I would suggest you're misinterpreting the materials you are posting, since none of them support that idea.



posted on Jul, 4 2019 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I am starting to wonder what you are all about. So whats this? So spiral galaxies also follow the familiar Fibonacci pattern. So if they do does an "ice crystal" in outer space follow a Fibonacci pattern of shape and geometry as physics are physics. Right? I mean I am not a member of the God squad but I guess if he was to exist and have created the heavens and the earth then the Fibonacci pattern is both here on earth and in spiral galaxies. Well as James Comey would say; Lordy, Lordy!

Spiral Galaxies


Not surprisingly, spiral galaxies also follow the familiar Fibonacci pattern. The Milky Way has several spiral arms, each of them a logarithmic spiral of about 12 degrees. As an interesting aside, spiral galaxies appear to defy Newtonian physics. As early as 1925, astronomers realized that, since the angular speed of rotation of the galactic disk varies with distance from the center, the radial arms should become curved as galaxies rotate. Subsequently, after a few rotations, spiral arms should start to wind around a galaxy. But they don't — hence the so-called winding problem. The stars on the outside, it would seem, move at a velocity higher than expected — a unique trait of the cosmos that helps preserve its



edit on 4-7-2019 by Waterglass because: typo

edit on 4-7-2019 by Waterglass because: added

edit on 4-7-2019 by Waterglass because: added link



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I am starting to wonder what you are all about. So whats this? So spiral galaxies also follow the familiar Fibonacci pattern. So if they do does an "ice crystal" in outer space follow a Fibonacci pattern of shape and geometry as physics are physics.

You asked in your loaded question "2. Do the formulation of ice crystals as videoed from ISS follow the properties of the fibonacci sequence as they do on earth? "

You still never provided a link showing a Fibonacci pattern related to the formation of ice crystals. You posted some links that perhaps you misinterpreted.

And now you post another loaded statement that "So spiral galaxies also follow the familiar Fibonacci pattern", also meaning in addition to what? Ice crystals? You never showed that ice crystals formed following the properties of the Fibonacci sequence.

And so now instead of either proving that they do with a link that actually proves your assertion, you now switch to galaxies, and seem to be saying that since galaxies follow a Fibonacci pattern then ice crystals must too?

That's what is called in logic a "non-sequitur" which means "it does not follow", that it does not follow that if spiral galaxies form a certain way that ice crystals or anything else besides spiral galaxies necessarily form the same way as spiral galaxies. In fact, some other types of galaxies don't follow a fibonacci pattern, so we can't even say it applies to all galaxies, much less ice crystals.

Physics is physics, but galaxies are not ice crystals, they are quite different, which I would have hoped would be so obvious I wouldn't have to say it, but apparently I do need to point this out. Even different types of galaxies are different from each other and some follow a Fibonacci pattern, and some don't. So much for "physics is physics", the same physics applies to all galaxies but they didn't all form the same way, so it's a mistake to try to generalize things that can't be generalized, the universe is complicated.

edit on 2019711 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



Largest galaxies grow up gradually like snowflakesText


Snowflake



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Waterglass

NGC 1407 is NOT a spiral galaxy! There is nothing in that link about Fibonacci. I have no idea where you're trying to go with posting an article about a galaxy that has nothing to do with Fibonacci and snowflakes which have nothing to do with Fibonacci, but your "ice crystals follow the properties of the Fibonacci sequence on earth" remains unsubstantiated. It seems like you are just grasping at straws and perhaps don't understand anything you're posting.

To explain further, I do understand it and the article you linked to is written by a science writer, not a scientist. The science writers often (almost always) do not understand the science as well as the scientists who wrote the paper. The scientists say nothing in their paper about galaxies being anything like snowflakes and in fact they are not, it's a bad analogy thrown in by the science writer. Science writers make all kinds of claims that are not what the scientists said. If you want to know the real science, read the paper the scientists wrote, not what the science writer misinterpreted. Here's the actual paper, no mention of snowflakes:

Evidence for Two Phases of Galaxy Formation from Radial Trends in the Globular Cluster System of NGC 1407

I've heard scientists compare the expanding universe to an expanding loaf of raisin bread, but that in no way implies the same physics is going on in both cases just because they are being compared in analogy. In fact all analogies are inherently flawed in some way, none is a truly accurate representation of the thing they are trying to compare. They are often seen as ways to "dumb down" scientific concepts that may be unfamiliar to a layperson, but they should in no way be interpreted as being accurate and that is certainly true of such a comparison between snowflakes and galaxies.


edit on 2019711 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Do you mean that the article is FAKE? Or that the authors are incompetent and presented a misleading statement? Please confirm as I will contact them direct and tell them that I have an expert here on Above Top Secret who claims they are wrong. Lets Do this together!



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Do you mean that the article is FAKE? Or that the authors are incompetent and presented a misleading statement? Please confirm as I will contact them direct and tell them that I have an expert here on Above Top Secret who claims they are wrong. Lets Do this together!
As I said, all analogies are wrong in some way, but that doesn't prevent us from using them to try to "dumb-down" scientific concepts for laypeople. I think the problem is more on your end of taking the analogy too seriously when the author says they "This is similar to how ice crystals build up around a microscopic dust grain as it falls to Earth, forming a snowflake." Note he doesn't say they are the same, nor does he say the same physics are going on.

The snowflake forms from a process called "crystallization" which is not what's going on in the galaxy, where the accretion is via gravitational means, so those are completely different physical processes, and not very similar. So is he wrong to say it's similar? The context in which he draws the analogy is to contrast the formation process with another formation process of two galaxies colliding. He doesn't give an analogy for that but probably any analogy you could come up with for that process like two billiard balls colliding would also be a bad analogy, because galaxies aren't any more like billiard balls than they are like snowflakes, they are completely different from either one.

So in the context he uses the analogy I'm as ok with it as I am with all other analogies which are all wrong in some way, but it doesn't support your idea that "physics is physics" in the sense that galaxy formation and snowflake formation have much in common, the physics involved in snowflake formation and galaxy formation are completely different. If you want you can ask him to confirm that, then we can see how competent the science writer is, based on his reply. If you asked the authors of the paper "Evidence for Two Phases of Galaxy Formation from Radial Trends in the Globular Cluster System of NGC 1407", there is no doubt they would tell you the physics is completely different for snowflake formation and galaxy formation. They make no mention of crystallization of the galaxy in their paper, the process which forms the snowflakes.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join