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.

 

HAARP Manipulates Time-Physicist Dr. Fran De Aquino: (Very Interesting-if you can understand it)

page: 8
25
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
I'd take issue with the idea that this machine could manipulate time, whatever else it might be able to do. The reason being that time only exists now - in this moment. "Length of time" can measure what has existed and/or what will exist, but neither actually does now, therefore it is not open to being manipulated. "Perception of time", certainly can alter but it isn't the same thing as time itself. Or is this physicist suggesting that the machine could influence the instant that is "now", and if so, how?

Slightly on a tangent, but does anyone know if a Haaarp device (even a lower-power one) could be carried and operated on a vehicle (such as a ship)? Or do they use too much power for that? Not that I am thinking of getting one.




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
When the velocity approaches the speed of light, the molecular forces then come into play when they weren't in play before hand because the mass desires a change to alot for the energy, but the atoms don't want to change so a new battleground is set up and that decreases the velocity or resists changes in the velocity...


I find this exposition woefully inadequate. Mass has "desires"? Sheesh. And what "molecular forces"? What if there is no molecule to begin with?



They resist change, it's called inertia. Everything that has mass, has inertia.

Intermolecular forces are what hold the atoms together. If there is mass, that means there are atoms (unless of course we are dealing with subatomic particles) and if there are atoms then there are intermolecular forces.

These are extremely basic concepts that everyone should know.


I may not be a cactus expert, but.....

edit on 26-5-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Intermolecular forces are what hold the atoms together. If there is mass, that means there are atoms (unless of course we are dealing with subatomic particles) and if there are atoms then there are intermolecular forces.


The existence of mass per se does not lead to existence of atoms. More than 99% of matter in the Universe exists in non-atomic form. Besides, atoms are formed because of electromagnetic interaction of the nucleus and the electrons. So while mass is important, it's not the main factor in forming atoms.


Further, the existence of atoms does not mean there are "intermolecular forces". You are making two mistakes here: "inter" means "between" (as opposed to "intra"), so it assumes that molecules already exist and besides it does not relate to "holding atoms together" (non sequitur). Second, atoms can happily exist by themselves, for example as much as 1% of Earth atmosphere is argon, and it does not form a molecule (except in very low temperature and rather exotic conditions).


These are extremely basic concepts that everyone should know.


I agree, everyone should, but as your post demonstrates, some people still don't.


I may not be a cactus expert, but.....


I can't wait to read your post on cacti, no doubt it will be informative.

edit on 27-5-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Intermolecular forces are what hold the atoms together. If there is mass, that means there are atoms (unless of course we are dealing with subatomic particles) and if there are atoms then there are intermolecular forces.


The existence of mass per se does not lead to existence of atoms. More than 99% of matter in the Universe exists in non-atomic form. Besides, atoms are formed because of electromagnetic interaction of the nucleus and the electrons. So while mass is important, it's not the main factor in forming atoms.


Further, the existence of atoms does not mean there are "intermolecular forces". You are making two mistakes here: "inter" means "between" (as opposed to "intra"), so it assumes that molecules already exist and besides it does not relate to "holding atoms together" (non sequitur). Second, atoms can happily exist by themselves, for example as much as 1% of Earth atmosphere is argon, and it does not form a molecule (except in very low temperature and rather exotic conditions).


Good try, but not quite. The OP is dealing with earth, not space.
Here sweetie, read up on it:
en.wikipedia.org...
Lone atoms don't go straying around, but even if they did, the name "intermolecular force" doesn't apply to just molecules, but to atoms, molecules and ions.
Seriously, this is pretty elementary stuff and your misunderstanding of it speaks volumes of you...

I may not be a cactus expert... but I know a prick when I see one



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Good try, but not quite. The OP is dealing with earth, not space.


Did you read the OP? It's about "controlling space-time". These are not attributes specific to Earth.



Here sweetie, read up on it:
en.wikipedia.org...


Thank you, darling, that's about what I said in my post, I quote from the article:

They are weak compared to the intramolecular forces, the forces which keep a molecule together


Compare with what you said:

Intermolecular forces are what hold the atoms together.


See the difference?



Lone atoms don't go straying around, but even if they did


There is plenty of monoatomic elements around us and in space.So yes, they do "go around".


, the name "intermolecular force" doesn't apply to just molecules, but to atoms, molecules and ions.
Seriously, this is pretty elementary stuff and your misunderstanding of it speaks volumes of you...


I stand corrected! Intermolecular forces can also act between atoms and molecules. But intermolecular forces do not bind atoms together.

But let's look at the first point I made -- I read some of de Aquino materials and they contain physics (which may be right or wrong) but he never relies on specifically terrestrial conditions in his math, so I'm at loss to explain your fixation on "intermolecular forces" as explanation for de Aquino's work.

One manifestation of that is this silly paragraph:

When the velocity approaches the speed of light, the molecular forces then come into play when they weren't in play before hand because the mass desires a change to alot for the energy


Relativistic effects can't be explained by molecular phenomena. To a limited extent, the opposite is true.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I stand corrected! Intermolecular forces can also act between atoms and molecules.


About time!



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I stand corrected! Intermolecular forces can also act between atoms and molecules.


About time!


However, this nuance has nothing to do with the OP, as well as in no way it explains relativity.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
You'll get there eventually , you got this far



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
You'll get there eventually , you got this far


I won't. I find your description of "desires" (sic) that atoms have, and intramolecular forces, completely irrelevant to de Aquino's work in the context of this thread.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
You'll get there eventually , you got this far


I won't. I find your description of "desires" (sic) that atoms have, and intramolecular forces, completely irrelevant to de Aquino's work in the context of this thread.




eh, you still have a chance of getting there



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
You'll get there eventually , you got this far


I won't. I find your description of "desires" (sic) that atoms have, and intramolecular forces, completely irrelevant to de Aquino's work in the context of this thread.




eh, you still have a chance of getting there


I rest my argument.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
It's so funny. If you use scientific vernacular, you have layfolk who complain that they don't understand. If you put it in layman's terms, then you have people who have finished their first college semester who complain about the vernacular. It's a catch 22.
One of the groups will complain no matter what you do won't they?


Oh well, they'll grow up some day and be real, live adults



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem


I rest my argument.


And that's the difference. You had an argument, I had a case.
I rest my case



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
It's so funny. If you use scientific vernacular, you have layfolk who complain that they don't understand. If you put it in layman's terms, then you have people who have finished their first college semester who complain about the vernacular. It's a catch 22.


It's really not any sort of catch 22 and not some sort of vernacular. It's a pile of nonsense, like in, I quote:

When the velocity approaches the speed of light, the molecular forces then come into play when they weren't in play before hand because the mass desires a change to alot for the energy, but the atoms don't want to change so a new battleground is set up and that decreases the velocity or resists changes in the velocity...


Pure, cold nonsense.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
It's so funny. If you use scientific vernacular, you have layfolk who complain that they don't understand. If you put it in layman's terms, then you have people who have finished their first college semester who complain about the vernacular. It's a catch 22.


It's really not any sort of catch 22 and not some sort of vernacular. It's a pile of nonsense, like in, I quote:

When the velocity approaches the speed of light, the molecular forces then come into play when they weren't in play before hand because the mass desires a change to alot for the energy, but the atoms don't want to change so a new battleground is set up and that decreases the velocity or resists changes in the velocity...


Pure, cold nonsense.


Nope, not at all, you're just not able to understand it yet. Maybe you'll get there eventually.

You rested your "argument" already, now you are in contempt of court. Unless you want to serve virtual jailtime, don't push it



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 



When the velocity approaches the speed of light, the molecular forces then come into play when they weren't in play before hand because the mass desires a change to alot for the energy, but the atoms don't want to change so a new battleground is set up and that decreases the velocity or resists changes in the velocity...


OK, I'm not writing this for you, so don't bother. I just don't want others to slip on that pile of poo.

a) The mention of "molecular forces" is extraneous and misleading in this attempt to present relativistic concepts. "Molecular forces" are not responsible for either special relativity kinematics, or for any aspect of general relativity.

b) The effects of relativity do occur and are measurable at velocities much smaller than the speed of light.

c) the part where "mass desires but atoms don't want" looks like a description of schizophrenic matter -- after all, atoms do have mass.

d) all in all, p!ss poor exposition



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Then don't quote me or talk about me if you aren't writing it to me.
Just because you can't comprehend it, doesn't mean it isn't accurate. Not my fault that you lack skills in science. Maybe you can take some night classes?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
It's so funny. If you use scientific vernacular, you have layfolk who complain that they don't understand. If you put it in layman's terms, then you have people who have finished their first college semester who complain about the vernacular. It's a catch 22.
One of the groups will complain no matter what you do won't they?


No, not if your language is precise and your analogies effective. Of course layman's terms will never be as precise as maths, but it can be accurate in itself.



Oh well, they'll grow up some day and be real, live adults

Not attempting to patronise someone by referring to them as "sweetie" and then repeating phrases such as "You'll get there eventually , you got this far", might help your case of maturity.

Patronising someone far better qualified than yourself looks even sillier.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
It's so funny. If you use scientific vernacular, you have layfolk who complain that they don't understand. If you put it in layman's terms, then you have people who have finished their first college semester who complain about the vernacular. It's a catch 22.
One of the groups will complain no matter what you do won't they?


No, not if your language is precise and your analogies effective. Of course layman's terms will never be as precise as maths, but it can be accurate in itself.



Oh well, they'll grow up some day and be real, live adults

Not attempting to patronise someone by referring to them as "sweetie" and then repeating phrases such as "You'll get there eventually , you got this far", might help your case of maturity.

Patronising someone far better qualified than yourself looks even sillier.


I seriously doubt he is better qualified than I am.


He's upset because I put it into terms that someone without a science background could understand because he wants everything in great detail. I was very clear in what I was doing (translating it to laymans terms) and the person I explained it to understood where they didn't before.
For some reason, somebody reads a website somewhere and suddenly feels they are an authority, but he isn't. I have actual degrees in both Mathematics and in Physics and I DO know what I'm talking about. He has google and doesn't know what he's talking about. There's a big difference.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

I seriously doubt he is better qualified than I am.


Would you like to take a bet on that?



He's upset because I put it into terms that someone without a science background could understand

He doesn't seem upset, just attempting to correct your inaccurate description. Something you've made no effort to defend - instead you just wave your hands about and tell him to "go to night classes".

Why don't you address the points he laid out clearly a few posts above - the ones labelled a to c.



I have actual degrees in both Mathematics and in Physics

So you keep saying.


edit on 27/5/12 by FatherLukeDuke because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join