Opposing Mainstream Physics - Swan001 (opposition) vs ATS

page: 14
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

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


I wouldn't mind hearing an explanation of what you mean there.




posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
www.space.com...



One-quarter the size of a football field, Sunjammer will produce a whopping maximum thrust of approximately 0.01 newton, Barnes said — roughly equivalent to the weight of a sugar packet.
Fasten your seat belt.


Seriously though, I'm glad to see the technology being developed. But I was hoping for a little more thrust than the weight of a sugar packet.


Originally posted by ImaFungi
Do you view gravity working as a physical well in space-time? like the dip in the fabric models?
That's a little simplistic, and usually shown as a 2d representation of a 3d phenomenon. If that illustration helps others that's good, but I know enough of the math to see it in mathematical terms.


if dark energy is a uniform property of space, how do atoms exist? atoms have space in them dont they?
If specific density is a property of salt being dissolved in salt-water, how do salt-water fish exist? Fish have water in them, don't 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?
If I knew the answer to the cosmological constant question I'd be expecting a Nobel prize.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Lol. Wait till science grasps the distinction between chronometer time and ambient time
I wouldn't mind hearing an explanation of what you mean there.
See the link in his signature. The normal tomato has a pH pf 4.6. The other tomato subjected to anti-gravity time dilation in the time machine has a pH of 4.0.

But apparently he won't release all the details of this technology except to those that license it. Did I get that about right, Angelic Resurrection?



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

That's a little simplistic, and usually shown as a 2d representation of a 3d phenomenon. If that illustration helps others that's good, but I know enough of the math to see it in mathematical terms.


and so in mathematical terms its not a constant pocket of less dense space surrounding the earth? Like if a cannon ball were shot through a pool of water at 60,000 mph and there were mini cameras all around the cannon ball perhaps there would be a pocket of displacement trailing the cannonball? Which leads me to a question of, how does the earth create the gravity well in front of its path? how can it affect space it hasnt reached yet? ( I think the answer is that the vector lines of space-time curve relatively evenly all around the earth, so at all points on earth (front back and all around) the space-time is locally affected by the earths mass so before the earth even gets to space in front of it, that space is already curved toward it, because the space closer to the earth from that point is curved toward the earth, because the space closer to the earth from that point is curved towards the earth, and the space closer to the earth then that point is touching the earth and its curved.) .. Now if I try to think about what is physically going on, if space is physical in some way, and my cannonball analogy isnt terribly bad, it would lead me to believe that the rotation of the earth has something to do with it being able to distort the space in front of it, it has not yet reached; because if that cannon ball was rotating, your friend centrifugal force, would cause a displacement 360 degrees around itself. Then my way of looking at it might be in trouble if objects sent into space dont rotate around the earth in one direction (with the earths rotation) more easily (like a marble rotating around a flushed toilet). Are there any planets that dont rotate that have orbiting moons? Are there any planets that orbit around the sun in a different direction? any stars that orbit the galactic black hole in a different direction?



if specific density is a property of salt being dissolved in salt-water, how do salt-water fish exist? Fish have water in them, don't they?


You could have just said; even thought dark energy exists uniformly, and is an inherent quality of what space is, the space in atoms does not have dark energy.

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



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 




See the link in his signature.


I can't go there again, it makes me sad. The time pilot can prevent rust as well. Don't let the appearance of the drum that supports the zucchini wilting plywood ion flux thruster fool you.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

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


Lo Sir comedy, you are winding up every1 on here.
But I've answered yr ques elsewhere



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 06:30 AM
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.

Ugh, I don't know if that'll work. Propulsion usually needs reaction. As space is almost a vacuum, photons would pass right through it. There would be a present, but very small reaction - I'd place more bet on the ionic thruster.

Wait, space isn't a perfect vacuum around Earth - Apollo did succeed at propelling themselves back using chemical only. Hm, I wonder, how much viscosity is there really in our space (the one in our solar system)? Do anyone have the data for that?


Originally posted by ImaFungi
www.space.com...

Nice, you found it!

Hm, I always thought solar sails worked more on using solar wind (fast-moving matter particles emitted from the Sun) than on using its photons energy.
edit on 7-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

One-quarter the size of a football field, Sunjammer will produce a whopping maximum thrust of approximately 0.01 newton, Barnes said — roughly equivalent to the weight of a sugar packet.
Fasten your seat belt.


Seriously though, I'm glad to see the technology being developed. But I was hoping for a little more thrust than the weight of a sugar packet.

Especially if you consider the size of the sail.

Ah, I'd go with ionic thruster.
edit on 7-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
if specific density is a property of salt being dissolved in salt-water, how do salt-water fish exist? Fish have water in them, don't they?
You could have just said; even thought dark energy exists uniformly, and is an inherent quality of what space is, the space in atoms does not have dark energy.
That's not what my question implies at all. Fish do have water in them. They have other things too. Likewise atoms have space in them, but they have other things too. In no way does this imply that the "space in atoms does not have dark energy", but if it does, it's probably too small to measure, so it's probably a moot point, so I'm not sure why you even care. It's kind of like asking if the Earth moves toward a paper clip when you drop a paper clip. The math says it does, but good luck measuring it.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

I wouldn't mind hearing an explanation of what you mean there.

What I can reveal at the moment is:
All processes ( physical, chemical etc ) in this universe are essentially governed by anbient time. The universe does not care how man chooses to measure time with his chronometers.
Lets take a light bulb and dilate the time of the filament. The light coming out of this filament will be of a higher freq.
and vice versa.
Now apply same to your satellite clocks or to any phenomena in the universe, you care to choose.
Now what happens to einstein's GR?



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur


But apparently he won't release all the details of this technology except to those that license it. Did I get that about right, Angelic Resurrection?


Unfortunately, Yes you got that right.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 



All processes ( physical, chemical etc ) in this universe are essentially governed by anbient time.

Aside from the fact that this is merely your assertion, I am uncertain as to what exactly this assertion means to you. Can you be specific?

ETA: Ambient indicates local time. That suggests you believe time is variable. Isn't that what relativity says?
edit on 7-3-2013 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 



Lets take a light bulb and dilate the time of the filament.
How?



Now apply same to your satellite clocks or to any phenomena in the universe, you care to choose. Now what happens to einstein's GR?

I give up. What happens?
Can you show the math?
edit on 3/7/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

I give up. What happens?
Can you show the math?
edit on 3/7/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Just like your proffessor, I wont be spelling out everything for you.
Do it as your homework



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
This whole site is turning into the grey area. This is the science forum, anyone posting anything even slightly outlandish should have to back up any claims they make with LOTS of DATA!!

Hay, I've just invented a whole new system of physics and can now travel faster than light but I don't feel like sharing or showing any of you. But you all will believe me!!



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by Phage

I give up. What happens?
Can you show the math?
edit on 3/7/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Just like your proffessor, I wont be spelling out everything for you.
Do it as your homework


Perhaps you could misspell it out, in keeping with your usual style.

Why can't you give answers to the questions you're asked? It's pertinent to the discussion. Then again you seem more interested in posting as if to your own personal cryptic blog rather than engaging in discussion.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Just like your proffessor, I wont be spelling out everything for you.
Do it as your homework
The picture of the one normal tomato and one experimental tomato in your signature link is impressive, but my professor told be that a sample size of one per experimental subgroup was not satisfactory. So, if you really want to be like my professor, you might need a larger sample size than 1, to determine if you have a statistically significant effect. He was looking for at least 95% confidence and I think the CERN experimenters are looking for better than 5 sigma (standard deviations) to prove things like the Higgs boson. However I'm not sure what you'd measure on the tomato to give 95% confidence.

If I had a time machine that was slowing down time, I'd put a clock in there instead of a tomato to see how much, but you seem to be suggesting that won't work?



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Okay, so let's address the other issue I proposed in my OP.

Although I strongly believe quarks exists, I also form the thread's opposition. So in these circumstances I would like to ask, How do we know for certain quarks exists? Were there any direct observation of a quark in all history? Any picture?



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
Were there any direct observation of a quark in all history? Any picture?
I think buddhasystem is a particle physicist so he more qualified to answer particle physics questions...but I can tell you what I know.

You could ask the same question about an electron...we have pictures of electron cloud orbital shapes that match wave function predictions, but not the actual electron itself as far as I know.

Likewise with quarks, we know about them from the evidence they leave rather than observing them directly. For example:

www.sciencephoto.com...



Caption: Evidence for the top quark. Computer display of particle tracks which provide strong evidence for the existence of the top quark. Top quarks are created in proton-antiproton collisions along with top anti-quarks. A top decays almost instantly into a bottom quark and a W boson. The W then decays into a quark-lepton pair (eg an electron and neutrino). The magenta track has the highest momentum, and is a muon from a W decay. Green and yellow tracks are 'jets' from other quark decays. The red arrow indicates 'missing energy', normally due to one or more neutrinos. These tracks were detected by the D0 experiment at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, USA.
edit on 7-3-2013 by Arbitrageur because: added link



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by ImaFungi

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


Lo Sir comedy, you are winding up every1 on here.
But I've answered yr ques elsewhere


The fact that you are not confident enough to simply state what you think gravity is, yet bash Einstein constantly for his attempts, is interesting.





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join