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.

 

The Aether Reality

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


So now you have resorted to debating semantics. What's a matter, ran out of electrolyte?


For normal people, and especially those involved in science, words have meaning and it must be respected if one wants to gain a modicum of understanding of the matter at hand. Others, they don't care. They crap all over ATS with their usual dictionary hijack behavior.




posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1Agnostic1
Out of the blue? Really?
I made several points, one being that photons are subjected to gravitation. It should be logical proof enough...


Except that they are not. They are affected by the curvature of space-time. Exactly as Einstein predicted. When your premises are false your logic is not sound.


Well, since it's the very DEFINITION of mass. But, as I am, altruistic and generous I gave others.
And the observations you talk about don't prove photons to have no mass. They simply don't detect it.


So you do agree that every experiment that tried to prove photons have mass had a negative result. Yet for some illogical reason you insist they have.


Beside the definition of mass itself you mean?
I'll go even further, the simple fact that a photon is matter is enough to conclude it has mass.


Except for the simple fact that photons are not matter.


How do you define being 'absorbed' please?


Please do some reading about the subject before you reject it.


Er... What?
They don't slow down, yet they accelerate? And if they accelerate doesn't that mean their speed isn't constant?


Photons don't accelerate or decelerate. This however would become a serious problem if you believe that photons have mass. How else could an object with mass change direction instantaneously by 180 degrees except for unlimited acceleration? How do you explain away inertia, a property of matter?

It all points in the same direction: photons don't have mass.


What about photons making a hole in your body? Ever heard of laser?
Sure, it won't push you, it'll just do a through and through like if you were not even there. Powerful enough?


The good thing about a discussion forum such as this is that you can learn something every day. For instance, holes made by lasers are not the result of photons piercing a target. It is the result of photons being absorbed, increasing the temperature of the molecules, and literally burning a hole.


Are photons subject to gravitation, yes or no?


No.


I concede that an equivalence is not equal. Bad shortcut from my part.
Still, at least when there is movement, there is no energy without mass nor there is mass without energy.
Photons have energy, therefore they (also) have a mass.


A misconception on your part. There is no reason to reject the notion that a particle can have energy but no mass. You are making an argument from incredulity. And on a subject that has mountains of evidence.


Anyway why do you avoid speking about the tunnel effect and the redshift discrapencies I mentioned when talking about the speed of photons?


I am avoiding it for 3 reasons:

1) I didn't read about it.
2) You can only better the world for a limited amount.
3) I don't know much about tunnel effect and that would mean have have to put at least some hours into it to get up to speed, which I currently don't have the time for.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


There might be such a thing as a true vacuum, located between your ears. You are a fine example.


So you are saying that DenyObf, I and some others are "desperate" to make an argument, then you say THIS.

Meh.

I guess it serves us (smart people) well, for we constantly violate Matthew 7:6. Sometimes, the Bible makes a lot of sense. This time, it has a word for you.



edit on 15-1-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-


Are photons subject to gravitation, yes or no?


No.


Well, since they are affected by the space time metric, and influence it through the electromagnetic terms in the stress-energy tensor (though quantitatively this term is practically negligible), I'd call this one as "yes". Otherwise I agree with you 100%: photons are massless, and convey momentum and energy nonetheless thanks to relativity.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1Agnostic1
The supposed massless nature of photons has NEVER been proven. It just a baseless claim.


iopscience.iop.org...

www.princeton.edu...




What is more logical is to consider than ANY particle interacting with its environment MUST have a mass.
Also, the simple fact that photons can decelerate, be reflected and stopped IS proof they have a mass.
More, even considering the standard definition of mass, photons are subject to gravitational effects, therefore they have a mass!


None of the above is a true statement in physics. "logical" doesn't matter, experiment does. Extensive experimentation shows consistently: photons behave in the manner which shows that they interact with charged particles, they carry momentum and energy, are subjected to gravitational influences, and do not have mass.


Finally, Energie = Mass. ALL particles have/are energy, therefore they all have mass.


Actually E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2, and for photons, m = 0, but p (momentum) is non-zero and depends on their frequency.

Please, it's time to deny ignorance. It's OK not to know physics. It's not OK to assert wrong things and be unwilling to learn.
edit on 15-1-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Normal people, and especially technical people who work in the sciences, also know that when you dodge a question with semantics, you either don't know what you are talking about, or you refuse to admit when you are wrong.

Being that you can't answer the question, you must fall into this group.

The fact is that all known matter is in a constant state of acceleration or de-acceleration, including the Island of Hawaii, and the Rocky Mountains.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


This is where I get lost


Actually E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2, and for photons, m = 0, but p (momentum) is non-zero and depends on their frequency.


If mass is zero then momentum which is mass times velocity would be zero, so E = 0. Any help?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


constant state of acceleration or de-acceleration

That's redundant. Acceleration is the rate at which velocity changes. It can be a negative or positive value. It can also be zero depending on the frame of reference. An object with no forces applied to it will have zero acceleration whether it is in motion or not.

edit on 1/15/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by mbkennel
 


This is where I get lost


Actually E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2, and for photons, m = 0, but p (momentum) is non-zero and depends on their frequency.


If mass is zero then momentum which is mass times velocity would be zero, so E = 0. Any help?


It's not mass times velocity. It's the equation that you quoted that defines the momentum for the photon.

Even for non-zero mass particles, it's mass times gamma times velocity. This doesn't work for massless particles since gamma would be infinity.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I'll do what I should have done in the first place and look it up. Thanks for the reply.
( I guess it's off topic a bit and wouldn't want to tie up the thread with this.)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   
All this "aether" stuff belongs in skunk works, not in the science forum



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


You think you got something here, but all you demonstrate is your lack of knowledge. I would be embarrassed if I were you.

Anybody who knows anything about the purity of metals would not find it strange at all to suggest plasma exists in and around copper wires conducting electricity.

A little info on the subject.

ieeexplore.ieee.org...

There are those who theorize, and those who do.

www.plasma-i.com...



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Anybody who knows anything about the purity of metals would not find it strange at all to suggest plasma exists in and around copper wires conducting electricity.

A little info on the subject.

Did you read your source? It says nothing about plasma existing in copper wire. It's about treating wire with plasma in order to strengthen it.


The main purpose is to examine the annealing effect by using atmospheric pressure plasma, and investigate the surface cleaning effect for metal wire.

ieeexplore.ieee.org... 73


There are those who theorize, and those who do.

I don't see anything in the Tesla article about plasma.

edit on 1/15/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Acceleration if a change of speed.

Something is not accelerating or de-accelerating if it is moving at a constant rate.

Do you agree or disagree with my point that verything is constantly changing the rate at which it is moving?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


It is about metal purity.

Best I could find on short notice.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
All this "aether" stuff belongs in skunk works, not in the science forum


You are apparently new to this forum. As idiotic as this topic is, it beats a few others. Example: orgone accumulator. There is a member here who thinks that one can collect lifeforce streaming from the Universe, in a wooden box. They also believe that the Montauk Experiment succeeded in opening portals to distant galaxies (which portals were promptly invaded by mean space aliens). They way the portals were operated is a separate story which involves a bizarre sexual fantasy. And guess what, the proton is actually a black hole. And Egyptians used "frequencies" to alter the condition of matter.

So against this background of shameful stupidity, refusal to learn and to use what's left of one's brain, a discussion of "aether" actually looks half-decent. Sad but true.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Acceleration if a change of speed.

No. Acceleration is the rate of change in velocity.


Something is not accelerating or de-accelerating if it is moving at a constant rate.
You are being redundant again.


Do you agree or disagree with my point that verything is constantly changing the rate at which it is moving?
Everything subjected to a force will exhibit a change in velocity.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Best I could find on short notice.
You at least could have read it. It has nothing to do with plasma existing in copper wire. It's about using plasma as part of the cleaning and annealing process.

edit on 1/15/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join