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.

 

Gravity, Hydrogen Bond & Free Energy - ATS changes the game!

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
I like how we go from the claim a few threads ago that we don't understand gravity or electromagnetism, to, now, what amounts to the claim that we don't understand chemistry. I can't wait for the thread arguing F = ma is wrong, too!


Originally posted by zarp3333
To date, physicists cannot agree on the nature or mechanism of gravitational force or the hydrogen bond.


As a physicist, let me assure you, we absolutely can on both accounts. I'm sorry if you weren't taught the right answers, or can't understand them, but don't try to shift your ignorance to the rest of us.



Instead of the traditional depiction of elecrons orbiting the nucleus like planets on a 2-Dimensional record player


The depiction that has been known to be incorrect for a century?



Imagine a torus shaped like a grapefruit with a thin spindle in the middle.


Imagine a sphere shaped like something round. More words does not equal a better argument.



Now imagine electrons spiraling up the outside from the bottom tracing the circumference. As the electron transitions from the wide circumference at the top, and go into the thin tube, they speed up, like water flushing down a drain.


Based on what? Why should they? Because you say they do? Why do they even follow the surface of the torus according to your idea?



This causes a vacume-like effect at the top or "negative" pole. When the electrons emerge from the bottom and make the transition to the outside, they send out a wave of energy.


None of those words make any sense.



Picture a rock hitting a pond. Only instead of 2D waves rippling away from the center, picture a spiral wave form coming out of the bottom.


And it doesn't get any better.



This would also explain that gravity increases by the inverse square of the distance. As separate masses get closer, the poles of more and more molecules begin to line up thus increasing the attraction.


No, it doesn't. Also, it DECREASES, not increases. Also, also, it's been understood since Newton why gravity decreases like 1/r^2.



I initially used this theory to explain the hydrogen bond and magnetism.


By explain, of course you mean doing detailed numerical calculations and comparing them with experiments, and reproducing standard results in chemistry?



Wouldn't it be cool if ATS got credit for finally figuring out gravity? Fick'n A!


They don't even get credit for figuring out physics that's been known for a century or more, so I'd say it's a safe bet that they will not.




posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


Let me guess... You're going to cite wikipedia for information on black holes? Well then, go into your own personal explanation on how virtual mass-less particles shape reality. Follow it up with observable matter passing through dark matter without being shredded first. I get a kick out of these typical know-it-all types fumbling around.




edit on 24-3-2012 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Moduli
 


Let me guess... You're going to cite wikipedia for information on black holes?


Nothing about this has anything to do with black holes, but I would cite Wald or MTW or Hawking (obviously citing my own graduate degree in theoretical physics doesn't mean anything because, you know, that's what I would say). Unless you'd like to argue that all these people are morons, too?

...which you probably do, as I do recall a thread insisting Hawking was "having words put into his mouth" by "TPTB" to mislead us about gravity....



Well then, go into your own personal explanation on how virtual mass-less particles shape reality.


These words don't make sense, but the answer to the version of these words that do is called quantum field theory. It, for example, describes in addition to gravity and quantum mechanics: electromagnetism, nuclear physics, solid state physics (the kind of physics that describes transistors, LCD screens, and lots of other technology), chemistry, ordinary Newtonian physics, and tons of other stuff.

But, hey, obviously it's just an accident that we can send spacecraft around the solar system using our understanding of gravity, build a global communications network with our understanding of electricity and magnetism, construct transistors with our understanding of quantum mechanics, etc, etc. That's all just a sign of how little we know, clearly.

What could we possibly REALLY know by doing so little? And, I mean, we only use math that takes decades to study to understand to do these things, so clearly anyone with just a tenuous grasp of high school math can just come along and shake things up.

Because we all know that knowing things = arrogance. Just look at those arrogant carpenters who tell us how to build shelves! And those arrogant dentists telling us to brush our teeth! Those typical know-it-all types!



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 





which you probably do, as I do recall a thread insisting Hawking was "having words put into his mouth" by "TPTB" to mislead us about gravity....





These words don't make sense, but the answer to the version of these words that do is called quantum field theory.


Not my words, but he does reference virtual mass-less particles, and it sold books. Must make sense now.


The electromagnetic attraction between negatively charged electrons and positively charged protons in the nucleus causes the electrons to orbit the nucleus of the atom, just as gravitational attraction causes the earth to orbit the sun. The electromagnetic attraction is pictured as being caused by the exchange of large numbers of virtual massless particles of spin 1, called photons. Again, the photons that are exchanged are virtual particles. However, when an electron changes from one allowed orbit to another one nearer to the nucleus, energy is released and a real photon is emitted – which can be observed as visible light by the human eye, if it has the right wave-length, or by a photon detector such as photographic film. Equally, if a real photon collides with an atom, it may move an electron from an orbit nearer the nucleus to one farther away. This uses up the energy of the photon, so it is absorbed.


sqentropy.dyndns.org...



Quantum field theory relies on quantum scale which is nothing more than a range of positions coupled with velocity. But hey, let's talk spacecraft. What trajectories are they programmed to take? Global communications up next... So how do cell phone towers work? I mean, c'mon even... Quantum computing is a measurement of spin assigned on/ off positions. This is an assembly/ reassembly of information from every point and perspective.

We know what we know. We don't know what we don't know...

Same as the apparent truth in all things.

edit on 24-3-2012 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Moduli
 

Not my words, but he does reference virtual mass-less particles, and it sold books. Must make sense now.


1. This is a pop-sci book using nontechnical phrasing.
2. You don't understand the way in which these words are being used.



Quantum field theory relies on quantum scale which is nothing more than a range of positions coupled with velocity.


That's technobabble and it doesn't mean anything.



But hey, let's talk spacecraft. What trajectories are they programmed to take?


What? What is this even supposed to mean? That's like me talking about cars, and you responding "But hey, let's talk cars. What roads to they take?"



Global communications up next... So how do cell phone towers work?


This is fun. Do you want to know how shoes work next? Cell towers work using the principles outlined in any basic undergraduate textbook on electromagnetism.



Quantum computing is a measurement of spin assigned on/ off positions.


It absolutely is not. Quantum computing is linear algebra in special kinds of Hilbert spaces.



We know what we know. We don't know what we don't know


Apparently some of us know neither of these things.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 



Rather than the ones and zeroes of digital computing, quantum computers deal in what are known as superpositions - states of matter that can be thought of as both one and zero at once.


www.bbc.co.uk...

That didn't take long. I think I'll stop while you're behind. On second thought, I might leave you with another clue for reference:




posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Researchers engineer molecular magnets to act as long-lived qubits

www.physorg.com...



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Moduli
 



Rather than the ones and zeroes of digital computing, quantum computers deal in what are known as superpositions - states of matter that can be thought of as both one and zero at once.




That's a special case of a less sophisticated version of what I said. And thanks for the swastikas, I guess?



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


Just as I was about to give up on ATS as having been taken over by brainwashed trolls of the SOL generation, I saw your thoughtful reply. After researching the first link on toroidal math, I started what my wife calls "A-D-D'ing."

I knew there had to be somebody else who thought what I did. Please listen to the following video at 11:45. A gentleman named Maurice Cotterell wrote a book called "Future Science Forbidden Science." He claims to have figured out gravity in 2007 and ascribes the force to "...corkscrew electromagnet radiation waves given off by atoms due to the spinning of the electrons as they orbit..."

Not exactly what I thought but very similar. This video is part of an interview with George Knapp on Coast.




posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by zarp3333
 


Wait a moment. So anyone questioning the content of your post is a "brainwashed troll of the SOL generation"? How convenient for you. What is the purpose of this thread then? To come up with the most awesome scientific-sounding nonsense?

OK. Here is my favorite:
"you use an immensely powerful rotating magnetic field to focus a narrow beam of gravitons, which in turn fold-space time consistent with Weyl tensor dynamics until the space curvature becomes infinitely large and you produce a singularity"



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join