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.

 

Opposing Mainstream Physics - Swan001 (opposition) vs ATS

page: 13
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Various theories, both of spacecraft behavior and of gravitation itself, were proposed to explain the anomaly. Over the period 1998-2012, one particular explanation became accepted.


..continued:

Over the period 1998-2012, one particular explanation became accepted. The spacecraft, since it is in a vacuum, can only get rid of its heat by radiation. If due to the design of the spacecraft, more heat is emitted in the direction opposite the sun, then the spacecraft would slow down due to the radiation pressure of the emitted radiation. Since this force is due to the recoil of the thermal photons, it is also called the thermal recoil force.

Hm, sounds interesting! Thanks for the link.


And there is nothing wrong with proposing various hypotheses, that's part of the scientific method.

But until one of the competing hypotheses is proven with evidence, the differing hypotheses are just that, hypotheses.

Naturally




posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kurokage
Try dropping all the new age nonscience and your grasp on the Universe will improve!!

I OPPOSE New Age of Aquarius non-science in my threads! You should read them more carefully before commenting about them.

As a side note, I am about to post a thread (physics again) which would bring evidence against new age nonsense.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
If we both have real time coms with absolutely no lagg at any distance, and we are teleconfrencing, and we both look at a pulsar with a period of exactly 1 second, and you are on earth, and I am on jupiter, and we let the experiment run for a million years, you would record far more pulses than I, even though we were watching eachother in real time, because my soecific situation in a higher gravity woukd be different than yours kn a far lower gravity world, thus your time would move faster than mine.
[...]
Itnis an exact predicted measured and known quantity, thathas never showed a single flaw in almodt 100 years of testing.

I know all this. And I also know that the watches used in the test to "prove" the theory were atomic clocks - caesium decay-based clocks, if I am not mistaking. As you know, particle decay itself is influenced by the level of surrounding energy - that's why protons, which can live as long as the Universe, decay relatively quickly inside the Sun (and yield positrons+neutrinos) - because it has higher energy.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 




And I also know that the watches used in the test to "prove" the theory were atomic clocks - caesium decay-based clocks, if I am not mistaking.

I also botched this one myself. If you're interested, it works like this


A cesium clock operates by exposing cesium atoms to microwaves until they vibrate at one of their resonant frequencies and then counting the corresponding cycles as a measure of time. The frequency involved is that of the energy absorbed from the incident photons when they excite the outermost electron in a cesium atom to jump ("transition") from a lower to a higher orbit.
tycho.usno.navy.mil...



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

It's not that complicated, it's a 913 mph head start going East at Cape Kennedy. So it can affect payload, fuel requirements, final orbital velocity. The orbiting craft can travel the same velocity in either direction, if you give it enough fuel. But it takes a lot less fuel to go in the direction where you have a 913 mph head start. I don't see why this concept is hard.

The Earth has angular momentum which results in tangential surface velocity. So it's just the result of momentum, which isn't really a force


(i know, fake force, but its still a known term) Ok so it is like centrifugal force coupled with gravity ( I think at least). Think of a playground merry go round, think of it having gravity like the earth and rotating like the earth, and on the surface the gravity wins, (maybe like staying at the center of the merry go round) but as you go further from the center of gravity, a little bit of the rotational force is felt, however because gravity is still ever present, its not enough force to sling you off of the earth.

Is momentum not considered a force because only Electromagnetism, strong,weak, and gravity are considered a force? So me picking up a ball and throwing it would be electromagnetic force?

And about dark matter and dark energy. If space is distortable or can have wells created in it, is relativistic gravity waves/wakes/wells a candidate for dark matter? If space is something, and gravity can be viewed like Einstein's way, cant there be extra energy/mass produced when the wells fold in on themselves after the mass as traveled through? I think dark matter being a dynamical aspect of space is the best bet for the observations of stars rotational curves, not a new particle like axion or something. The way I look at it, the physicists/astronomers think that the dark matter would be contained outside of the galaxy, and with that insight, I think this bunching of gravity around a galaxy is the walls of the well of the galaxy, I think from that point 'dark energy' is sent out ward in all directions as the galaxy rotates, and 'dark matter' gravity amplification is kept in (black hole possibly helps with this by constantly sucking in local space-time 'thinning out the space time in the galaxy making its reign of gravity even more 'good' by having less dense space-time in the galaxy then outside of it.
edit on 6-3-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
(i know, fake force, but its still a known term) Ok so it is like centrifugal force coupled with gravity ( I think at least). Think of a playground merry go round, think of it having gravity like the earth and rotating like the earth, and on the surface the gravity wins, (maybe like staying at the center of the merry go round) but as you go further from the center of gravity, a little bit of the rotational force is felt, however because gravity is still ever present, its not enough force to sling you off of the earth.

Is momentum not considered a force because only Electromagnetism, strong,weak, and gravity are considered a force? So me picking up a ball and throwing it would be electromagnetic force?
To answer why momentum isn't a force, you have to ask how a "force" is defined...momentum doesn't meet the definition of a force. Since this is a thread about physics, it might be helpful to speak of correct physics concepts. Also, the fictitious "centrifugal force" is not in the direction that addresses your question about East versus West, since it's a radial "force", meaning straight up. So using "centrifugal force" to explain why satellites go faster when launched East near the equator doesn't really explain it, at least not from my view.

It seems simpler to imagine an observer on the moon, who would observe the satellite is already going east at 913mph at Cape Kennedy even before it's launched. If you want it to go east at 1000mph after launch, you only have to accelerate it 87 mph in the east direction. If you want it to go west at 1000mph you have to accelerate it 1913 mph in the west direction. That's a big difference. The difference at orbital velocities isn't as large on a percentage basis, but the idea is the same, and to me that's a much better explanation than "centrifugal force".


The way I look at it, the physicists/astronomers think that the dark matter would be contained outside of the galaxy, and with that insight, I think this bunching of gravity around a galaxy is the walls of the well of the galaxy, I think from that point 'dark energy' is sent out ward in all directions as the galaxy rotates,
I've seen no evidence to support this hypothesis...is there any?

I can't say it's wrong, but I wouldn't propose that hypothesis personally. I can't say the assumption physicists make is necessarily correct either yet, but they assume what you say about dark matter but not about dark energy. They assume dark energy is probably a uniform property of space, perhaps even related to vacuum energy, but this is not easy to confirm. I prefer to say I just don't know, and I don't think anybody else does either, but if you've seen some research paper I've missed that supports your view, I'd love to see it.


Originally posted by swan001
Hm, sounds interesting! Thanks for the link.
You're welcome. But if you were thinking of turning on a flashlight while wearing rollerblades to see if you get pushed backwards...I already tried it...the effect is too small.
It's pretty interesting though and amazing they can measure such a tiny effect.
edit on 6-3-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
"Time" is the achilles heel of science, IMO.

(actually so is gravity, but that sways from the point I want to make
)

By claiming that general relativity is correct, hence time dilation, then doesn't that mean Quantum physics is incorrect ?

In order for GR to work, then a photon MUST have zero mass (at rest)... but we can't actually measure a photon at rest because it cannot rest... but I digress.

So it's an axiom.

But according to quantum theory (Hawking et al), not only do photons need to have some kind of mass, so do neutrinos. (If I'm understanding the basics of quantum physics correctly).

That being said, Cern is discovering something that's actually moving faster than C... which, in my mind, must mean it has even less mass than a photon, correct ? Which stands to reason then that a photon is not just a measurement of light energy, but an actual particle substance with some sort of mass that we've not yet been able to precisely measure. This means that a photon is limited to C.

And by agreeing that a photon is zero mass, then we too are limited to C.

So yes, GR and SR make perfect sense right now, but maybe only because it's the only way we can wrap our brains around it as yet.

This achilles heel is most likely why the Unified theory has been such a hair puller... even though we know damn well it should exist, right ?

Or am I way off in left field here ?

I really do believe that "time" is human perception stemming from our naivety of any other way of looking at things. Perhaps our "knowledge" is limiting our ability to see what's right in front of our noses ?


Hell, even Einstein questioned himself:
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution." ~ Albert Einstein


I'm imagining that Einstein wished he could have lived for another 50 years because I'll bet he felt he was on the verge of figuring out something that went beyond E=mc^2...


Okay, now my brain hurts.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 


not only do photons need to have some kind of mass,
false


Cern is discovering something that's actually moving faster than C
false


Hell, even Einstein questioned himself:
And yet, all anyone seems to be able to do is demonstrate that he was right. And it isn't for a lack of trying.


edit on 3/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by CranialSponge
 


not only do photons need to have some kind of mass,
false


Cern is discovering something that's actually moving faster than C
false


Hell, even Einstein questioned himself:
And yet, all anyone seems to be able to do is demonstrate that he was right. And it isn't for a lack of trying.


edit on 3/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Okay so photons don't need mass in order for quantum physics to work ?

Hasn't it been discovered that neutrinos do indeed travel faster than the speed of light ?
I'm not talking about the Higgs Boson (the glue)...

Yes, Einstein is still being proved correct... but again, maybe because of this "achilles heel".



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 


Okay so photons don't need mass in order for quantum physics to work ?
On the contrary. If they had mass it would be problematic.


Hasn't it been discovered that neutrinos do indeed travel faster than the speed of light ?
They thought so...maybe...but they were mistaken.
news.sciencemag.org...



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by CranialSponge
 


Okay so photons don't need mass in order for quantum physics to work ?
On the contrary. If they had mass it would be problematic.


Hasn't it been discovered that neutrinos do indeed travel faster than the speed of light ?
They thought so...maybe...but they were mistaken.
news.sciencemag.org...





Ahh, thanks for the link.

I was under the impression that OPERA was still under examination. I guess I need to keep up with science news better. Pfft.

Then I guess it just goes back to the axiom, which hasn't been proven wrong otherwise, but an axiom still the same.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
I also botched this one myself. If you're interested, it works like this


A cesium clock operates by exposing cesium atoms to microwaves until they vibrate at one of their resonant frequencies and then counting the corresponding cycles as a measure of time. The frequency involved is that of the energy absorbed from the incident photons when they excite the outermost electron in a cesium atom to jump ("transition") from a lower to a higher orbit.
tycho.usno.navy.mil...

Okay, thanks for the link. So they count using the caesium to resonance, not radioactivity. Thanks!



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
On the contrary. If they had mass it would be problematic.

Well, a photon can't be over 1×10−18 eV/c.
edit on 6-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



But if you were thinking of turning on a flashlight while wearing rollerblades to see if you get pushed backwards...I already tried it...the effect is too small. It's pretty interesting though and amazing they can measure such a tiny effect.

Yeah, it is! Can you imagine that... The Push of Light.

Plus, the name "Push of Light" makes you think it's gonna be super-fast, you know, but it's really extremely weak... It has a nice ironical ring to it!

edit on 6-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by CranialSponge

Yes, Einstein is still being proved correct... but again, maybe because of this "achilles heel".

Thats false. Lot of scientists dont subscribe to his gr, but sort of dont speak out against it, as
they fear the so called inquisition, Lol.
An example would be ning li and evgeny podkletnov, both ostracised and missing in action.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
Yeah, it is! Can you imagine that... The Push of Light.

Plus, the name "Push of Light" makes you think it's gonna be super-fast, you know, but it's really extremely weak... It has a nice ironical ring to it!
The light or thermal photons, do travel as fast as you can get, at the speed of light, so a lot faster than a 45 caliber round, but they just don't have enough momentum to give much "kick".

Now if we could just make some good photon-powered engines to propel spacecraft. I know some people are trying.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
[
Okay, thanks for the link. So they count using the caesium to resonance, not radioactivity. Thanks!


Lol. Wait till science grasps the distinction between chronometer time and ambient time



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur


I've seen no evidence to support this hypothesis...is there any?

I can't say it's wrong, but I wouldn't propose that hypothesis personally. I can't say the assumption physicists make is necessarily correct either yet, but they assume what you say about dark matter but not about dark energy. They assume dark energy is probably a uniform property of space, perhaps even related to vacuum energy, but this is not easy to confirm. I prefer to say I just don't know, and I don't think anybody else does either, but if you've seen some research paper I've missed that supports your view, I'd love to see it.


If you havent seen those ideas in a research paper I guess they are originally mine. Its good to hear you wouldnt propose this hypothesis personally, thats a good sign im on the right track.

Ok, lets imagine we paused the universe. Everything is exactly in its location relative to everything else, there is quanta of matter, and EM radiation and space. It would be really hard to tell from this freeze frame how much relativistic energy every bit of matter has in this freeze frame ( like taking a photo of a speeding car, it would be hard to know how much kinetic energy it has). If we resume the universe for 5 seconds and then pause it again, every single quanta of energy/matter and volume of space-time would have advanced proportionally according to its properties. (this is the absolute universal clock), So space-time is proportional to the kinetic energy of quantized matter/energy since the begging of the universe, this is why space expands progressively, because energy is existing/transpiring further and further in time. So dark energy most likely isnt some quality inherent to quantized volumes of space, more so an result or affect of the universe as a system existing, more so quantized energy/matter, and the result of it some point in the past being put into motion. the energy being in one place, beginning the existence of the universe is what caused space to exist, and as energy went on (time going on)(because of the nature of energy, and the fact that it wasnt just sitting still, it was moving, and as it was all moving, it was all interacting with it all in different ways according to physical laws, ) space had no choice but to be created, and at a progressive rate. Some I am just saying, space, and the qualties of space, are a result of energy/matter. Whether its dark matter, dark energy, or gravity, these qualities of space are results of the nature of energy/matter, not existences and causes on their own.

I have no problem saying I dont know, but I sure do love thinking about the universe, and desiree to know.

Do you view gravity working as a physical well in space-time? like the dip in the fabric models?

if dark energy is a uniform property of space, how do atoms exist? atoms have space in them dont they?

So spatial expansion is like; first there were 0 planck lengths, then there were 1, then 2, then 3, then 4, then 5, all the way up to the 100000x9999999999^999999^99999 there are today? and where do astronomers or physists predict this space comes from? and where was the cosmological constant stored?
edit on 6-3-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by CranialSponge

Yes, Einstein is still being proved correct... but again, maybe because of this "achilles heel".

Thats false. Lot of scientists dont subscribe to his gr, but sort of dont speak out against it, as
they fear the so called inquisition, Lol.
An example would be ning li and evgeny podkletnov, both ostracised and missing in action.


How do they think gravity works? How do you think gravity works?



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Now if we could just make some good photon-powered engines to propel spacecraft. I know some people are trying.


www.space.com...







 
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join