"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 259
39
<< 256  257  258    260  261  262 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


When you have a paper to review, let me know. I may consider talking to you then.


Please review this paper: Search for new particles in two-jet final states in 7 TeV proton-proton collisions with the ATLAS detector at the LHC


As of now, your words mean nothing to me.


I wasn't sure if you still could get it, thanks for clarifying this detail for me.
edit on 13-2-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for:
Energy Generation in the Solar Interior

every second the Sun converts 600 million metric tons of hydrogen into 596 million metric tons of helium and 4 million metric tons of mass into energy.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for:
Energy Generation in the Solar Interior

every second the Sun converts 600 million metric tons of hydrogen into 596 million metric tons of helium and 4 million metric tons of mass into energy.



Is that what causes the sun to revolve around the black hole at the center of the galaxy? is that what causes all stars to keep stable orbits around the center of the galaxy?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for:
Energy Generation in the Solar Interior

every second the Sun converts 600 million metric tons of hydrogen into 596 million metric tons of helium and 4 million metric tons of mass into energy.



Is that what causes the sun to revolve around the black hole at the center of the galaxy? is that what causes all stars to keep stable orbits around the center of the galaxy?
That was an answer to your question:


Originally posted by ImaFungi
When EM radiation is emitted/produced does the system that produced it lose energy and mass?
You either can't remember what question you just asked, or you're trolling. I suspect trolling.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


When you have a paper to review, let me know. I may consider talking to you then.


Please review this paper: Search for new particles in two-jet final states in 7 TeV proton-proton collisions with the ATLAS detector at the LHC


So you collided beams of protons of certain intrinsic energy and mass at a certain velocity... and recorded the isolated scattering of quarks... How they reacted with one another, and the magnetic field they are in, the directions they traveled and the speeds at which they did so? If that is not a good summary of that paper, is there any way you can generally and simply correct me?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for:
Energy Generation in the Solar Interior

every second the Sun converts 600 million metric tons of hydrogen into 596 million metric tons of helium and 4 million metric tons of mass into energy.



Is that what causes the sun to revolve around the black hole at the center of the galaxy? is that what causes all stars to keep stable orbits around the center of the galaxy?
That was an answer to your question:


Originally posted by ImaFungi
When EM radiation is emitted/produced does the system that produced it lose energy and mass?
You either can't remember what question you just asked, or you're trolling. I suspect trolling.


Oh perhaps it was. It just that at first you replied to my post that question wasnt in.

So are you implying that EM radiation before it is "emitted/ejected" from interacting atoms, it is stored as mass? where is the potential EM radiation before it is kinetically emitted? and when atoms are fused the 2 fusing atoms give up EM radiation that previously was a material part of their existence? Im asking what is EM radiation?


edit on 13-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Why should I???? Did you personally write the paper? I saw a bunch of names, like hundreds. Doesn't mean anything to me.

Your words mean nothing to me because all I read is arrogance and ignorance with zero wisdom. I could care less to interact with you on any subject.


Understanding what you say is easy, its your arrogance and ignorance I have major problems with.

When you don't understand something, you attack. Its a nuisance to any thread.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


You asked for a paper to review.
2nd



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by forgetmenot
 


I asked if HE had a paper to review. HE is the keyword. Unless its a chick.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

You've heard of the famous equation E=mc² ?

Read up on that. In reference to our sun you can put 4 million metric tons of mass on the right, check the source's math on the sun's conversion rate per second. There is some delay from the time mass is converted into energy, until the energy actually escapes from the star as EM radiation. The delay results from the density of the star. I'm sure you can find sources to read about this if you look.

edit on 13-2-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Why should I???? Did you personally write the paper? I saw a bunch of names, like hundreds.


ATLAS is a large collaboration, is this news to you? There is no single person who's responsible for contents. It's a collective work by definition. I'm on that team. Wait, I don't think you even know what ATLAS is... I can also tell you didn't actually get to the paper.



Your words mean nothing to me because all I read is arrogance and ignorance with zero wisdom.


There is no appeasing an ignoramus. They require a paper from you, you give them the paper, it still means nothing to them.

Oh well, what else is new...
edit on 13-2-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   


ATLAS is a large collaboration, is this news to you? There is no single person who's responsible for contents. It's a collective work by definition. I'm on that team. Wait, I don't think you even know what ATLAS is... I can also tell you didn't actually get to the paper.
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Oh. I can promise I have heard of it. LOL!

What is your name? You are a scientist? Have you not your own personal theory and or papers? Many do.... just wondering.... well the ones who are not on ATS all day.


Also, are you doing any independent or fewer team studies? If so, what are they?

You act as if you know so much more than so many people.... just wondering how you have time to be a know it all when you are on ATS all the time.
edit on 13-2-2013 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
So you collided beams of protons of certain intrinsic energy and mass at a certain velocity...


About right.


and recorded the isolated scattering of quarks...


Quarks are not observable by themselves. We detect particles in final states, but not really quarks themselves.


How they reacted with one another, and the magnetic field they are in, the directions they traveled and the speeds at which they did so? If that is not a good summary of that paper, is there any way you can generally and simply correct me?


It will do, thank you. The magnetic field is in fact important (and good you put it into your description) because it's the key to measuring the particles momenta, based on the detected curved trajectory.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Look here... arxiv.org...

This is much better than what he (??) linked. I had it bookmarked.



The corresponding observed 95% CL excited-quark mass exclusion region was found to be 0.30 < mq ∗ < 1.26 TeV using MRST2007 PDFs in the ATLAS default MC09 tune



The excluded regions were ∼30 GeV greater when only statistical uncertainties were taken into account. The expected limits corresponding to the data sample were computed using an analogous approach, but replacing the actual data with pseudo-data generated by random fluctuations around the smooth function described by fitting the data with Eqn.
edit on 13-2-2013 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

You've heard of the famous equation E=mc² ?

Read up on that. In reference to our sun you can put 4 million metric tons of mass on the right, check the source's math on the sun's conversion rate per second. There is some delay from the time mass is converted into energy, until the energy actually escapes from the star as EM radiation. The delay results from the density of the star. I'm sure you can find sources to read about this if you look.

edit on 13-2-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


Oh, so EM radiation is quarks and electrons. quarks and electrons disintegrate into EM radiation. Now I know, you should have just said so.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem


Quarks are not observable by themselves. We detect particles in final states, but not really quarks themselves.


The reason being the measurement? The apparatus that measures the particles forces them to be particles at the moment of measurement? This has to do with uncertainty principle and wave function collapse?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by buddhasystem


Quarks are not observable by themselves. We detect particles in final states, but not really quarks themselves.


The reason being the measurement? The apparatus that measures the particles forces them to be particles at the moment of measurement? This has to do with uncertainty principle and wave function collapse?


No. We would have seen a phenomenon like that, due to a different pattern of what you describe. There are terms like "hadronization" and "fragmentation" which are used to describe "dressing up" of quarks and creation of hadrons. This happens very quickly after the quarks scatter. It was thought that at RHIC semi-free quarks would exist for a longer period of time due to a phase transition in nuclear matter (the so-called quark-gluon plasma), but we found that the gluon density distribution was not in fact what people guessed. As a result, there is the "perfect fluid" created after a nuclear collision. We can even estimate the lifetime of this object using HBT interferometry (turned out to be small), and measure the kinematic parameters of how things scatter. We detected flow in the nuclear matter. But the topic is way too vast to be discussed in the present format in any meaningful manner, so I recommend you google RHIC and QGP. Also see this page at BNL. There is also a brief video there.



edit on 13-2-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Also it keeps me up at night thinking about EM radiation (yes I have read wiki explanation 50 times).



Originally posted by ImaFungi
Oh, so EM radiation is quarks and electrons.
If that's what you got from reading the Wiki article 50 times, you're not a very careful reader. It does mention photons.

en.wikipedia.org...

The photon is the quantum of the electromagnetic interaction, and is the basic "unit" or constituent of all forms of EMR.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The claim that the rotation of the Earth is caused by magnets coming from the sun seems equally absurd to me as the claim that the wheels on my car are turning because of hamsters.



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
www.rexresearch.com...

North and South Pole magnets are not only holding together the earth and moon, but they are turning the earth around on its axis. Those magnets which are coming form the sun are hitting their own kind of magnets which are circulating around the earth and they hit more on the East side than on the West side, and that is what makes the earth turn around.


I guess that's not saying the earth revolving around the sun, only spinning on its axis. (But it should be assumed he means both?)

Anyway, there is lots of information in that link about his two years of experimentation with magnets but no, there is nothing that is directly related to that claim. I think it is interesting that he mentions the latitude and longitude of his location, but I don't know that that has anything to do with that claim.

I do think that he was inferring it from the sum total of his work with magnets. But there is nothing to debate.

In general it seems reasonable to me though.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

I read through it, but I didn't see anything linking his experiments to his claims about magnets making the Earth rotate, and he specifically mentioned rotation, not orbit.

I'm not sure why you think it sounds reasonable...based on what? This is the filter of yours I don't understand again. The Peswiki article you found helpful explained how the Leedskalnin experiment in the video was completely explainable...and the Earth's rotation is also completely explainable without magnets from the sun. If the explanation was posted on Peswiki, would that help?

Latitude and longitude can be significant in magnetic experiments since the difference between true north and magnetic north varies by location, so this could affect experiments with a compass, for example.






top topics



 
39
<< 256  257  258    260  261  262 >>

log in

join