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 Scientist Takes On Gravity

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Once again, you post nonsense. The LHC does not attempt to discover "the fundamental particle". That's probably the level of discourse they use in third grade, perhaps.


Firstly, this statement you just made is laughable. Are really trying to say that the LHC is not attempting to find fundamental particles????

You defiantly do not have a shred of understanding about high energy physics, you've just proved it.

The whole point of particle physics is to probe the nature of matter, to understand it's origins by using high energies to break apart particles and see what they are made of...

The LHC was built to attempt a collision of around 14Tev, energies which were only present (to our knowledge) at the proposed Big Bang. This is so we can observe the type of particles that would have existed at that point and can extrapolate from that how we get to today.


ATLAS - A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS ATLAS is a particle physics experiment that will explore the fundamental nature of matter and the basic forces that shape our Universe. The ATLAS detector will search for new discoveries in the head-on collisions of protons of extraordinarily high energy. ATLAS is one of the largest collaborative efforts ever attempted in the physical sciences.

There are 1800 physicists (including 400 students) participating from more than 150 universities and laboratories in 34 countries. The protons will be accelerated in the LHC at CERN. The particle beams are steered to collide in the middle of the ATLAS detector. The debris of the collisions reveal fundamental particle processes.

The energy density in these high-energy collisions is similar to the particle collision energy in the early Universe less than a billionth of a second after the Big Bang.


However, the failure to come up with the Higgs Boson now and in the future should be very telling to those that believe matter sits within a space-time substrate.

The Higgs Boson is nothing more than pretty math, it does not exist in nature. LQG will be further validated when this is found out. The Higgs is needed so badly by the Standard Model for without it the

Though I'm sure there will be plenty of people out there that say something along the lines of it is ultra hard to detect, if at all, like a neutrino or some such like....

Secondly, I'm getting very tired of addressing your constant dribble of "no it isn't" comments. As I have stated before, if you disagree that's fine but please present your evidence to state why you disagree.

I have been very patient with you buddhasystems, but now you are becoming a pain and your posts reminiscent of trolling. Your ego is surely larger than your intellect! This is not a debating competition, this is a discussion and if you have nothing positive to add, please refrain from replying.

Mkay?

Korg.


[edit on 22-7-2010 by Korg Trinity]




posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
You see Particle Physics and equipment like the LHC or for that matter any particle accelerator is attempting to probe matter to find the fundamental particle.


That sounds like something Nassim Haramein said, but I've read about the six LHC experiments and they have a variety pf purposes so I'm not sure how that misconception that's all the LHC is trying to do came about.


You're quite right and although I shouldn't poohpooh any of the experiments as they are all very interesting in their own right, they are however a side order, the main experiments without a doubt will take place at ATLAS.

The experiments that take place at the LHC, (a programme that has been drawn up by petition from the various funding countries), takes place in order of energies required. For example when two stable beams was achieved at a level of 3.5Tev, experimentation could take place that required that level of energy.

Ultimately the LHC was built to reach 14Tev, this is the main event, this is what the ATLAS team are hoping for.


While I won't disagree about imagination being important, Einstein demonstrated through his actions that he knew imagination wasn't enough, and tried desperately to provide proof of his general theory of relativity paper before it got published, resulting in his friend getting arrested in Russia as a result.


Imagination is where all things start, validation requires action and in most cases re-imagination.

I thought Fuchs was arrested for espionage??


And in contrast, I see no lack of imagination amongst string theorists. What I do see is a lack of experiments and observations to link the imagination part to the real world. So while imagination is great, people quoting Einstein should also follow his example and provide some linkage back to the real world just as he did with his request for eclipse observations.


I couldn't have said it better myself!!


repeatable experiments and observations are the foundation of science, and without those, we have no way of knowing whether someone's imaginative idea is an insightful genius's view into reality, or a complete fantasy disconnected from reality. At the end of the day we need to know which it is, and there are so many conflicting imaginative ideas out there, they can't all be right.


The main issue is that you can reimagine everytime you run into lack of validation and around and around we go. When do we get off the merrygoround and try a different ride?

My point is, all the experiments are there to validate a single imagination (albeit combined imaginations) This is my main issue with the Scientific Community, everything has to be done by consensus. And the Big names throw weight. Smaller research teams that present interesting ideas that call outside of that consensus are rarely given the chance to validate.

String Theory, however is a different animal all together, since it cannot even come up with any predictions to test at experiment.

LQG however is a full description, and my comment about [IF its validated] earlier has a lot more to do with the consensus way in which physics is conducted than whether it is accurate... But the tide is changing..

It's good to converse with some substance at last.



Korg.

[edit on 22-7-2010 by Korg Trinity]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Once again, you post nonsense. The LHC does not attempt to discover "the fundamental particle". That's probably the level of discourse they use in third grade, perhaps.


Firstly, this statement you just made is laughable. Are really trying to say that the LHC is not attempting to find fundamental particles????


I'm not a big expert in English, but "THE FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLE" is absolutely not the same as "fundamental particles" in plural, plus many of the particles we are looking for aren't fundamental to begin with.


You defiantly do not have a shred of understanding about high energy physics, you've just proved it.


Yeah, whatever...


The whole point of particle physics is to probe the nature of matter, to understand it's origins by using high energies to break apart particles and see what they are made of...


I've had serious classes in particle physics so your little lecture here doesn't quite cut it.


The LHC was built to attempt a collision of around 14Tev, energies which were only present (to our knowledge) at the proposed Big Bang. This is so we can observe the type of particles that would have existed at that point and can extrapolate from that how we get to today.


Boy sometimes you indeed feel comfortable with trivia!



ATLAS - A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS ATLAS is a particle physics experiment that will explore the fundamental nature of matter


Yes, I worked on the ATLAS TRT. Tell me something I don't know.


There are 1800 physicists (including 400 students) participating from more than 150 universities and laboratories in 34 countries.


OK, my name is on the author list, what else is new?


The Higgs Boson is nothing more than pretty math, it does not exist in nature. LQG will be further validated when this is found out.


This is a bold statement from somebody who never had an honest class in quantum field theory.


Your ego is surely larger than your intellect!


Looking at facts, the latter is still bigger than yours



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I've had serious classes in particle physics so your little lecture here doesn't quite cut it.

Yes, I worked on the ATLAS TRT. Tell me something I don't know.

OK, my name is on the author list, what else is new?


I seriously Seriously SERIOUSLY doubt this, if this were true then your constant childish bickering would have been backed with some substance

I'll call your Bluff, (I've been calling it since my challenge to you on the subject of Quantum Mechanics) please validate your credentials, you can contact a mod or a site owner who can do this for you.

Or if you like U2U me....

If of course you are making things up as I suspect you are, then I will catch you out, I can promise that. I have friends working at fermilab and even a friend in HR!!!

If you want a job maybe you should pass me your CV, I'm sure they are always on the look out for a good janitor.

Korg.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
I seriously Seriously SERIOUSLY doubt this, if this were true then your constant childish bickering would have been backed with some substance


Korgy, I so don't care about your doubts. As for childishness, your promoting theories way beyond your understanding while bashing other theories equally beyond your mental horizon, that is indeed childish.


If you want a job maybe you should pass me your CV, I'm sure they are always on the look out for a good janitor.


I'm regularly in the meetings at FNAL in a different capacity, so I'll pass, thanks. I don't like the surroundings, either, although the cafeteria in the highrise isn't that bad.

But I'm glad that at least you have something to fall back on!



[edit on 22-7-2010 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
While I won't disagree about imagination being important, Einstein demonstrated through his actions that he knew imagination wasn't enough, and tried desperately to provide proof of his general theory of relativity paper before it got published, resulting in his friend getting arrested in Russia as a result.
I thought Fuchs was arrested for espionage??


www.1919eclipse.org...


He (Einstein) found an enthusiastic colleague in Erwin Findlay-Freundlich, whose expedition to Russia in August 1914 was scuppered by the outbreak of war in the very month of the solar eclipse: as a German national in Russia, he was arrested.




repeatable experiments and observations are the foundation of science, and without those, we have no way of knowing whether someone's imaginative idea is an insightful genius's view into reality, or a complete fantasy disconnected from reality. At the end of the day we need to know which it is, and there are so many conflicting imaginative ideas out there, they can't all be right.


The main issue is that you can reimagine everytime you run into lack of validation and around and around we go.
Why not? It would be great if we were insightful enough to always be able to make accurate predictions, then setup experiments and have the predictions confirmed, but we aren't always that insightful, so there van be some trial and error involved. Isn't Edison quoted as saying something like "Those weren't 1000 failures. I now know 1000 ways to NOT make a light bulb." Whether those were his exact words or not, the comment is pretty insightful.


When do we get off the merrygoround and try a different ride?
I'm not sure what you mean by that...what different ride?

Edison didn't get off that experimental merry-go-round with his light bulb experiments, he stayed on it, learned from each "negative result", and continued running more experiments until he finally came up with a light bulb that worked.

If he had gotten off the experimental merry-go-round and decided to just write a bunch of papers like string theorists do, people may have been reading by candlelight a bit longer. And at least some experiments or observations for LQG are being discussed:

www.edge.org...


The idea that you could do experiments to test the quantum theory of gravity was mentioned from time to time by a few people through the 1990s, but to our shame we ignored them. One person who proposed the idea forcefully is a young man in Rome called Giovanni Amelino-Camelia. He just ignored everybody who said, "You'll never probe scales that small. You'll never test these theories." He told himself that there must be a way, and he examined many different possible experiments, looking for ways that effects of quantum gravity could appear. And he found them. Now we know more than half a dozen different experiments we can do to test different hypotheses about physics at the Planck scale. Indeed, in the last year, several proposals about Planck scale physics have been ruled out by experiment.

The key thing that Amelino-Camelia and others realized is that we can use the universe itself as an experimental device to probe the Planck scale. There are three different ways the universe gives us experimental probes of the Planck scale. First, there are accelerators in distant galaxies that produce particles with energies much higher than we can produce in even the largest human-made accelerators. Some of these ultra-high-energy cosmic rays have been observed hitting our atmosphere with energies more than 10 million times those we have ever produced.


Since we don't control those high energy incoming particles, it's going to be much more challenging to do experiments and observations with them, but perhaps not impossible. I don't think we can build a particle accelerator as large as we'd like to in order to produce these 10 million times greater particle energies in the foreseeable future, so using nature's accelerators may be an alternative if we can overcome the technical challenges with this approach, which are formidable.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Yes, I worked on the ATLAS TRT. Tell me something I don't know.

OK, my name is on the author list, what else is new?





I had to come back for this.

PROVE IT.

And explain why in all the posts and time you have spent in these threads you don't offer anything of substance that would remotely add credence to your bickering.

And further, because I give you the benefit of the doubt, I suggest that even if you do have the credentials - you are so caught up in your own paradigm that you can't... nay Won't entertain anything out of your comfort zone.

All I want is a discussion, where I learn and you learn. But you just insult my intelligence every chance you get.

If you continue to insult intelligence and do not start behaving in a productive manner, I will be forced to ask ATS to confirm your credentials - because there is no way we could glean that from your childish posts. They imply the opposite of what you claim as your credentials.

I'm just sayin'...



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
One thing I have always thought was that if humans could ever solve the energy problem we have and develop a "nuke in a box" sort of power generation capability then we could then have enough energy to get on with developing a high electromagnetic antigravity propulsion device, which would then open up a whole new world for us.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
And explain why in all the posts and time you have spent in these threads you don't offer anything of substance that would remotely add credence to your bickering.


I offer plenty of substance to those willing to read. It's not "bickering", it's critical thinking that a few of contributors here don't seem to have in levels sufficient for discussing science.


Won't entertain anything out of your comfort zone.


Indeed, my comfort zone includes a modicum of common sense. I find it pathetic when somebody without physics education to speak of proclaims "oh but Higgs is bull and won't be ever discovered, however I have this wonderful LQG or whatever which is sure the theory for ages".


All I want is a discussion, where I learn and you learn. But you just insult my intelligence every chance you get.


You started that karma wheel, dude.


If you continue to insult intelligence and do not start behaving in a productive manner, I will be forced to ask ATS to confirm your credentials


That sounds like a silly threat but so be it. What' really remarkable is that you imply this: if I, buddhasystem, document my background to you to your satisfaction, all of a sudden the "insults" will turn into blessings.

And, my productive behavior consists in debunking armchair scientists who like to bash what they term "mainstream science" in favor of their pet theories du jour, without any comprehension of either. As a byproduct, I do extract a comic effect out of it



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimwarrior
a high electromagnetic antigravity propulsion device


What part of the sentence does the word "high" relate to?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
totally and utterly BRILLIANT!!

This man is a genius!!!

This is exactly what I've been saying for years, Gravity is a by-product of space-time density felt differently depending on the total surface area of space-time.


Spacetime is said to be infinite.

Another problem what causes this change in density?

Is it mass and energy that warp spacetime or is it just spacetime that warps itself and creates mass and energy?
(Rhetorical question.)



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
Another problem what causes this change in density?


At the Planck level of reality, Space-time literally boils. Its totally chaotic...

From this chaos comes order in the form of stable loops (Braids) of space-time. The total surface area of space time that these loops contain equates to mass.

How mass is felt (Gravity) depends on how many stable braids there are within a given area of space-time.

For example, a blackhole....

A black hole isn't actually a hole in space-time, it's just an area where there is a cataclysmic concentration of space-time. Now this may mean one of two things. Either there are some braids that are stable at gigantic scales or there are many braids in space time concentrated in one place.

If you like a Black hole is not a smooth spherical object... it's more like a ball of wool the cat has been playing with... it's stringy and messy....

LQG explains also why there are gravitational waves when two black holes collide and merge.

You see some of the braids are negated as there are positive braids and negative braids... when these braids collide in high concentrations in a black hole collision it literally unravels... Flattens the braid and converts it back to quantum foam. The effect causes a wave to form in space-time that can be felt as a gravitational wave.

Hope this helps,

Korg.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by kimwarrior
a high electromagnetic antigravity propulsion device


What part of the sentence does the word "high" relate to?


This is exactly the sort of comment Buddhasystems that if you were who you say you are you should know...

Quite clearly the High relates to Electromagnetic... how could it related to any other word in that sentence and make any sense??

You sir are a fraud.

Korg.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by kimwarrior
a high electromagnetic antigravity propulsion device
What part of the sentence does the word "high" relate to?
This is exactly the sort of comment Buddhasystems that if you were who you say you are you should know...

Quite clearly the High relates to Electromagnetic... how could it related to any other word in that sentence and make any sense??
Actually I don't even think English is his first language but he still seems to have a better grasp of English than some native English speakers.

If it refers to electromagnetic, what is the meaning of "high electromagnetic?"

Words that scientists use have very specific meanings and some laypeople don't seem to understand this and accuse scientists of arguing about semantics when that's hardly the case at all. Use what a layperson thinks is a word with a slightly different meaning and to a scientist, it's not just semantics, it may be a totally different equation, different units, etc. For example, if someone hands me a 50 pound bag of dog food and tells me to stand there and hold it, as a layperson it seems like a lot of work to me to stand there and hold that bag of dog food. My arms get sore after a while. So when a physicist tells me it's no work at all, I'd like to argue with him except I know he's right using the term "work" the way physicists use it. I think laypeople who fail to realize this will have difficulty communicating in terms of scientific concepts.

Actually it looks to me like there may be a word missing, as if the author might have meant to say something like "high-powered" which might make sense, but I have to agree with Buddhasystem that it doesn't make much sense to me as written.

I have a friend who seems to omit words from sentences in casual conversation so that may be why I'm biased to suspect such a pattern, and I could be wrong about the author's intent, but it would be nice to hear from kimwarrior to see what the intent was.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 

I noticed as a child that when small bath toys were left in a bath full of water they would all collect together and seem to be stuck by some mysterious force to the side. Now there are no currents wind or motion in the bath to cause this. I deducted they were being attracted across to the side much like a magnet. Does this show in a basic way that larger bodies attract smaller bodies. Now scale that up to planet size and its easy to see why we don't float into space. The question is why do larger bodies attract smaller bodies.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

If it refers to electromagnetic, what is the meaning of "high electromagnetic?"


I think it meant high-powered. Only the person that posted it can confirm that, though I think it's quite easy to deduce based upon the relation to the rest of the post.

But since the comment was a flight of fantasy at this point in history there is really no point in arguing over it.

English is the global business and scientific standard. I don't know many physicist that don't have a very good command over the language.

I'm sorry but saying the obvious twisting of language or covering a lack of scientific understanding on the grounds that English is not your first language is no excuse.

Thus far I believe only the original poster and I have presented any actual physics in this thread, Yet I'm not the one who is trying to say look at me I’m better than you etc.. I just want to have a discussion and I get annoyed when someone such as buddhasystems believes their intellect so outstrips everyone else that he can simply state you are wrong without giving any rhyme or reason as to why.

On this ground I know Buddhasystems is a fraud, and arguing about semantics is a moot point when all I want to do is discuss the amazing potential that the paper in the OP points to and further validates a theory that is gathering pace in the scientific community.

All the best,

Korg.


[edit on 23-7-2010 by Korg Trinity]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   
If English is not Buddhasystems's first language I personally would never have known (whether that's a reflectin of his good grasp or my poor grasp, I'll let the jury decide
). His posts are (to me at least) intelligent and informative and I see no reason for him to make false claims about his credentials.

My $0.02



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
His posts are (to me at least) intelligent and informative and I see no reason for him to make false claims about his credentials.


Please point me to the information presented by buddhasystems because I've just re-read all the posts and can't seem to place my finger on a single informative comment by that member.

Korg.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by tarifa37
I noticed as a child that when small bath toys were left in a bath full of water they would all collect together and seem to be stuck by some mysterious force to the side. Now there are no currents wind or motion in the bath to cause this. I deducted they were being attracted across to the side much like a magnet. Does this show in a basic way that larger bodies attract smaller bodies.
No I think what you observed is an effect called the "cheerio effect", not gravity. It's primarily the result of the surface tension of water (or milk which is mostly water).

Cereal Science: Why Floating Objects Stick Together


You may or may not have pondered why your breakfast cereal tends to clump together or cling to the sides of a bowl of milk. Now there is an easy explanation.

Dubbed the Cheerio Effect by scientists, this clumping phenomenon applies to anything that floats, including fizzy soda bubbles and hair particles in water after a morning shave.

The effect has been known for some time, but an explanation for non-scientists has been lacking.

Dominic Vella, a graduate student now at Cambridge University and L. Mahadevan, a mathematician from Harvard University, decided to change that. In a study that appears in the Sept. 15 issue of the American Journal of Physics, Mahadevan explains the Cheerio Effect using three basic concepts from physics: buoyancy, surface tension and the meniscus effect.

Place a single Cheerio in a bowl of milk and its weight will cause the milk beneath it to dip slightly, forming a dent in the once smooth surface of the milk. A second Cheerio placed into the bowl will form its own dent on the surface of the milk, and if the two Cheerios drift close enough to each other, they will appear to "fall into" one another, as if pulled together by an attractive force.

Cheerios near the edge of the bowl float upwards along the curve of the meniscus to look like they're clinging the edge of the bowl.

In both cases, the movements of the Cheerios are determined more by the geometry of the surface of the milk than by any attractive force acting between them.


[edit on 23-7-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Er back to entropic gravity.

So if 'gravity' is inversely proportional to entropy then it will be inversely proportional to temperature as well as proportional to the mass.

Therefore a BEC will have the highest gravity per mass and a plasma will have low gravity per mass.

Wouldn't this mean that Newtons laws would need to be altered to include temperature so the derivation from the holographic principle is also wrong?

So Newtons law would then become something like:
F = G.m1.(1+(1/t1)).m2.(1+(1/t2))/r^2

where t1 and t2 are the average temperatures of the masses.

Is there an error in my thinking?

[edit on 23/7/2010 by LightFantastic]



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join