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.

 

I am still a scientist!

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


hi
i think in one simple statement you have insulted me and other members who make the science area what it is today, and no one single member can take credit for our science forums,

Believe me, there are few places more in need of scientific explanations than places like this!


i dont know if you understand collaborations or simply are not used to how things work here but ALL members may present science for the membership to debate,

usually a debate will correct misconceptions and add depth of information for the reader,

the idea is you dont have to be a phd to try science in this forum,
it is open to all here that said,

i personally am not a phd or a "paid" scientist but have made contributions to the members understanding and the following debates have rounded out my understanding of complex subject matter,

it is give and take

i study optical physics,
and have authored many threads on the subject,
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

if we are inside a series of lenses how can we rely on distance as a reliable measure?

xploder




posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


A pin is like the central barrier of a double slit. Look up Fresnel for more information.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
If a bear farts in the woods does it smell?



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by Moduli
 

Hi Moduli

You've mentioned general relativity offering a way to explain inertia(as resistance to changes in motion).

From my limited knowledge a classical model is the Mach's principle. But it has issues due to action at distance. Another idea I've heard of assumes a finite particle size and acceleration induced stress as the cause of inertia.

Could you elaborate a bit more on inertia? Maybe even in a separate thread? Feel free to correct my statements above. Btw I am ok if you use math if required. Thanks.


I was looking for deeper insight as well rather than "its the M in F=MA" or GR's version.

GR doesn't explain the cause either as far as I am aware. I've seen various theories using gravity, quantum virtual particle 'bow waves' and other variations based on the quantum vacuum etc.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by scarystuff
 
a good place to start if you haven't already.... www.google.com... T0b34SvDmIkGGYRMVCv1ZILhg


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



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
I supose it was bound to come up, and mind you I skipped to the last post, read two or three above and then straight to the question. What do you think of the current charismatic physics hounds Nassim Haramein and Marko Rodin? are they psuedo?



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Closing Pending Staff Review

Semper



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join