Opposing Mainstream Physics - Swan001 (opposition) vs ATS

page: 15
14
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

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)


This is from wiki ( I guess they mean the average velocity was 100 m/s..idk) :


Japan's JAXA successfully tested IKAROS in 2010. The goal was to deploy and control the sail and for the first time determining the minute orbit perturbations caused by light pressure. Orbit determination was done by the nearby AKATSUKI probe from which IKAROS detached after both had been brought into a transfer orbit to Venus. The total effect over the six month' flight was 100 m/s.[31]
Until 2010, no solar sails had been successfully used in space as primary propulsion systems. On 21 May 2010, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) launched the “IKAROS” (Interplanetary Kite-craft Accelerated by Radiation Of the Sun) spacecraft, which deployed a 200 m2 polyimide experimental solar sail on June 10.[32][33][34] In July, the next phase for the demonstration of acceleration by radiation began. On 9 July 2010, it was verified that IKAROS collected radiation from the Sun and began photon acceleration by the orbit determination of IKAROS by range-and-range-rate (RARR) that is newly calculated in addition to the data of the relativization accelerating speed of IKAROS between IKAROS and the Earth that has been taken since before the Doppler effect was utilized.[35] The data showed that IKAROS appears to have been solar-sailing since 3 June when it deployed the sail.




posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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.


Um, we can assume some atoms have existed for a relatively long time. So all the space that has expanded in 10 years, 100 years, a thousand years, from a uniform volume; tons of small amounts of space, expanding to larger ones, except all the space in all the stable atoms...didnt expand. Im asking, if dark energy exists uniformly in all space, why didnt the space in atoms expand (and the space in protons and neutrons) like the space in between galaxies. I care because if the space in atoms is like the space outside of atoms, and the space outside of atoms expands uniformly with dark energy, but the space inside atoms never expands, there is a flaw in your thinking somewhere, you can recognize the honesty in my concern for this lapse of logic and rational in theory, or you can ignore what i am saying and call it a moot point again.

Is there a theory that a volume of water undergoes metric expansion acceleratingly over time. I guess you can say pour a glass of water on a marble counter and the waters volume will expand over time. Is this what is meant by spatial expansion? there is the same quantity,volume,area of space, but it is physical and it grows over time with accelerating pace, and where the space gets the extra space it grows with from, is the mystery?
edit on 7-3-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

Here's an interesting factoid for you:

www.astro.ucla.edu...

For the technically minded, Cooperstock et al. computes that the influence of the cosmological expansion on the Earth's orbit around the Sun amounts to a growth by only one part in a septillion over the age of the Solar System. This effect is caused by the cosmological background density within the Solar System going down as the Universe expands, which may or may not happen depending on the nature of the dark matter. The mass loss of the Sun due to its luminosity and the Solar wind leads to a much larger [but still tiny] growth of the Earth's orbit which has nothing to do with the expansion of the Universe. Even on the much larger (million light year) scale of clusters of galaxies, the effect of the expansion of the Universe is 10 million times smaller than the gravitational binding of the cluster.
If the Earth's orbit around the sun will only growth by only one part in a septillion over the age of the Solar System, this is essentially unobservable considering all the larger effects and variables.

Now consider that gravity is by far the weakest force, so other forces in atoms are over 30 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, if you know what that means. If you don't, it means if you can't even measure the expansion of Earth's orbit due to expansion, when there's only a weak force like gravity involved, you don't have a prayer of measuring any effect on the scale of an atom when the forces are maybe a trillion trillion trillion times stronger.

Not only that, but the vast majority of space in the universe is not within baryonic matter, so it's not even a particularly relevant question from that perspective either.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

Here's an interesting factoid for you:

www.astro.ucla.edu...

For the technically minded, Cooperstock et al. computes that the influence of the cosmological expansion on the Earth's orbit around the Sun amounts to a growth by only one part in a septillion over the age of the Solar System. This effect is caused by the cosmological background density within the Solar System going down as the Universe expands, which may or may not happen depending on the nature of the dark matter. The mass loss of the Sun due to its luminosity and the Solar wind leads to a much larger [but still tiny] growth of the Earth's orbit which has nothing to do with the expansion of the Universe. Even on the much larger (million light year) scale of clusters of galaxies, the effect of the expansion of the Universe is 10 million times smaller than the gravitational binding of the cluster.
If the Earth's orbit around the sun will only growth by only one part in a septillion over the age of the Solar System, this is essentially unobservable considering all the larger effects and variables.

Now consider that gravity is by far the weakest force, so other forces in atoms are over 30 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, if you know what that means. If you don't, it means if you can't even measure the expansion of Earth's orbit due to expansion, when there's only a weak force like gravity involved, you don't have a prayer of measuring any effect on the scale of an atom when the forces are maybe a trillion trillion trillion times stronger.

Not only that, but the vast majority of space in the universe is not within baryonic matter, so it's not even a particularly relevant question from that perspective either.


Im still jut confused then. The totality of space seems to be in scale, greater in size and distance then the size of baryonic matter. It is assumed before energy that created baryonic matter began in the big bang, the totality of space was 0. Which means from the beginning of the big bang, space went from 0 existence, to an accelerated expansion of 96% of existence. Why didnt the space contained in atoms expand at the rate and along with the space that was once sideless and existence less, and now has the most size and most distance and existence. So what is the right way of looking at spatial expansion? Like a cell that divides? or infinitely small pockets of space, that expand towards being infinitely larger (that reminds me of the metric expansion of the grid of space-time, where the coordinates stay the same, but they just expand from each other (like the walls of pockets staying at the same points, but them equally expanding in volume)? I would still have to ask, given millions of years, why havent the pockets of space in atoms expanded like all the other pockets of space? You are saying because quarks interact with one another in a way that keeps them stable-y attached, and because protons and neutrons interact with a force that keeps them attached, and because electrons interact with a force that keeps it attached to this system, the space in an atom cannot expand? (you think the space in atoms can be an integral part of how an atom works and behaves they way it does?)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

First I have to emphasize the expansion is so small even our solar system we can't even measure it. But if you want to talk about unmeasurable things like how fast the earth accelerates toward a paper clip when you drop it, then fine. Let's say the space in an atom expands a tiny bit.

The electron cloud is very porous, so it's not holding the space inside the atom. The extra space would be free to expand past the electron and there's no reason it would push the electron away because of the tremendous electromagnetic forces binding the electron to the atom. Likewise there are much weaker gravitational forces holding the Earth in orbit and even this is enough to almost completely overcome expansion effects. Even on the scale of a galaxy, expansion effects are thought to be inconsequential, again not necessarily because they aren't present, but because they are overwhelmed by larger effects like gravitational effects.
edit on 7-3-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi


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.

Lol Sir Comedy, you are incorrigible.
Once again gravity is simply an intrinsic property ( created by God ) of all matter / mass
to gravitate towards an higher ambient time rate.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


That was exactly what I was looking for, thanks!

Hm, beautiful, isn't it?



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


100m/s? Hm, not that bad after all.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by ImaFungi


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.

Lol Sir Comedy, you are incorrigible.
Once again gravity is simply an intrinsic property ( created by God ) of all matter / mass
to gravitate towards an higher ambient time rate.


Oh ok. So you just solved the problem,no need to actually explain anything, we dont need science or knowledge anymore. If we just say God did it we dont have to think about anything or know anything. Why didnt anyone think of this method before.
edit on 8-3-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

First I have to emphasize the expansion is so small even our solar system we can't even measure it. But if you want to talk about unmeasurable things like how fast the earth accelerates toward a paper clip when you drop it, then fine. Let's say the space in an atom expands a tiny bit.

The electron cloud is very porous, so it's not holding the space inside the atom. The extra space would be free to expand past the electron and there's no reason it would push the electron away because of the tremendous electromagnetic forces binding the electron to the atom. Likewise there are much weaker gravitational forces holding the Earth in orbit and even this is enough to almost completely overcome expansion effects. Even on the scale of a galaxy, expansion effects are thought to be inconsequential, again not necessarily because they aren't present, but because they are overwhelmed by larger effects like gravitational effects.
edit on 7-3-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


You keep saying space expanded a small amount, but I think space has expanded a large amount. The space between galaxies has expanded tremendous amount, galaxies are really really far away from each other, and the used to be all touching. That is a large amount of expansion.

I want to bring this up before I forget because it related (possibly) to the potential physicality of space.

In a vacuum, copper wire with a current. This generates a magnetic field around the copper wire right? And the cause of this magnetic field is the induced motion of electrons? How does the movement of electrons cause the affect of magnetic field, in what way do the electrons exert a force beyond themselves in vacuum? Is the magnetic field a form or function of EM radiation?



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by ImaFungi


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.

Lol Sir Comedy, you are incorrigible.
Once again gravity is simply an intrinsic property ( created by God ) of all matter / mass
to gravitate towards an higher ambient time rate.


Oh ok. So you just solved the problem,no need to actually explain anything, we dont need science or knowledge anymore. If we just say God did it we dont have to think about anything or know anything. Why didnt anyone think of this method before.
edit on 8-3-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

I would have thought, you would at least use a modicum of extrapolation into science, from that statement of mine. Lol



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 



I would have thought, you would at least use a modicum of extrapolation into science, from that statement of mine. Lol

At least you admit you didn't answer the question. When you're finished LOLing can you answer without requiring us to fill in the blanks?



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by ImaFungi


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.

Lol Sir Comedy, you are incorrigible.
Once again gravity is simply an intrinsic property ( created by God ) of all matter / mass
to gravitate towards an higher ambient time rate.


Oh ok. So you just solved the problem,no need to actually explain anything, we dont need science or knowledge anymore. If we just say God did it we dont have to think about anything or know anything. Why didnt anyone think of this method before.
edit on 8-3-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

I would have thought, you would at least use a modicum of extrapolation into science, from that statement of mine. Lol


"Intrinsic property of all matter/mass to gravitate towards a higher ambient time rate"

What is ambient time? What is a higher ambient time rate? what is a lower ambient time rate? How does mass gravitate towards a higher ambient time rate? If God gave matter an intrinsic ability to gravitate, what did he do in order for the mass to be able to gravitate, invisible magic potion, or did he use some real physical means in order to accomplish the function of gravity? If there is a physical mechanism at play in regards to mass gravitating, what is that physical mechanism?
edit on 8-3-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



Is the magnetic field a form or function of EM radiation?


I don't think radiation is involved in this aspect. In current, aren't the fields static?

I know that when I think about these things I tend to confuse fields and radiation which of course can leave me confused.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

To be frank, if you are having difficulty with a simple concept like why an object going east at 913 mph needs less energy to go East than West, then you may not be ready for the greater complexities of more complicated models and the interactions between them. I've patiently explained it the best way I know how more than once. So all I can do is leave you with another source saying the same thing in different words and see if it makes any difference.

If the universe is expanding, does that mean atoms are getting bigger? Is the Solar System expanding?


Mrs Felix: Why don't you do your homework?
Allen Felix: The Universe is expanding. Everything will fall apart, and we'll all die. What's the point?
Mrs Felix: We live in Brooklyn. Brooklyn is not expanding! Go do your homework.

(from Annie Hall by Woody Allen)

Mrs Felix is right. Neither Brooklyn, nor its atoms, nor the solar system, nor even the galaxy, is expanding. The Universe expands (according to standard cosmological models) only when averaged over a very large scale.

The phrase "expansion of the Universe" refers both to experimental observation and to theoretical cosmological models. Let's look at them one at a time, starting with the observations.
I'm not going to copy the whole source....you'll have to read it, but I'll add the conclusion.


The "true metric" of the universe is, of course, fantastically complicated; you can't expect idealized simple solutions (like the FRW and Schwarzschild metrics) to capture all the complexity. Our knowledge of the large-scale structure of the universe is fragmentary and imprecise.

In newtonian terms, one says that the Solar System is "gravitationally bound" (ditto the galaxy, the local group). So the Solar System is not expanding. The case for Brooklyn is even clearer: it is bound by atomic forces, and its atoms do not typically follow geodesics. So Brooklyn is not expanding. Now go do your homework.



Originally posted by swan001
That was exactly what I was looking for, thanks!

Hm, beautiful, isn't it?
You're welcome. I expect it would be more beautiful if I was a particle physicist. But it is amazing what we can learn by smashing atoms together.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

To be frank, if you are having difficulty with a simple concept like why an object going east at 913 mph needs less energy to go East than West, then you may not be ready for the greater complexities of more complicated models and the interactions between them. I've patiently explained it the best way I know how more than once. So all I can do is leave you with another source saying the same thing in different words and see if it makes any difference.

If the universe is expanding, does that mean atoms are getting bigger? Is the Solar System expanding?


Mrs Felix: Why don't you do your homework?
Allen Felix: The Universe is expanding. Everything will fall apart, and we'll all die. What's the point?
Mrs Felix: We live in Brooklyn. Brooklyn is not expanding! Go do your homework.

(from Annie Hall by Woody Allen)

Mrs Felix is right. Neither Brooklyn, nor its atoms, nor the solar system, nor even the galaxy, is expanding. The Universe expands (according to standard cosmological models) only when averaged over a very large scale.

The phrase "expansion of the Universe" refers both to experimental observation and to theoretical cosmological models. Let's look at them one at a time, starting with the observations.
I'm not going to copy the whole source....you'll have to read it, but I'll add the conclusion.


The "true metric" of the universe is, of course, fantastically complicated; you can't expect idealized simple solutions (like the FRW and Schwarzschild metrics) to capture all the complexity. Our knowledge of the large-scale structure of the universe is fragmentary and imprecise.

In newtonian terms, one says that the Solar System is "gravitationally bound" (ditto the galaxy, the local group). So the Solar System is not expanding. The case for Brooklyn is even clearer: it is bound by atomic forces, and its atoms do not typically follow geodesics. So Brooklyn is not expanding. Now go do your homework.




The space in atoms isnt the same type of space between galaxies then. The space between galaxies only exists, and continues to expand, because galaxies and their more micro contents are gravitationally bound and traveling through space and time. Energy/matter traveling through space and time according to their physical specifications and the physical laws which guide them is what is causing space to expand. Its like a pulley system, Its very difficult to determine what causes what, what is the cause and what is the result, and/or if it is not equal cause and affects for the parts. Like does expanding space cause galaxies to be separated by greater and greater distances, or does galaxies motions (cause the distance between galaxies to increase) cause the space in between them to expand. The universe as a system is very linked, that is why I dont think there can just be an infinite reserve of energized expandable space nature just keeps pulling out of its pocket like a clown with a handkerchief, I think there is a more logical causal relationship between the expansion of the universe and the materials time of existence, energy levels and distance in time and space from the singularity.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

A little thought for you both gentlemen. What if (pure speculation, of course) stars were actually spiralling down into their respective galactic core instead of orbiting (as we usually assume they do) around it? There would be no need for dark matter... and you would get a spiral shaped pattern, like in the beautiful picture below:

edit on 8-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

A little thought for you both gentlemen. What if (pure speculation, of course) stars were actually spiralling down into their respective galactic core instead of orbiting (as we usually assume they do) around it? There would be no need for dark matter... and you would get a spiral shaped pattern, like in the beautiful picture below:

edit on 8-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)


I feel like that is something similar to what ive mentioned to you before. but anyway, they are 'spiraling down'. Just like the planets are spiraling down toward the sun. Thats the whole idea of einstein gravity. A massive body in space creates a well in which other bodies then take the path of least resistance through space, which is the ever generated well walls created by the massive body. So the moon is in free fall around the earth, the earth is in free fall around the sun, the sun i assume is in free fall around the galactic center of mass. What then is a galaxy as a whole gravity attracted to? My idea is that on average, the act of gravity creation within a galaxy, especially of the spiral variety, the total spiral of the macro galaxy, by pulling space-time ever inward in the spiral, with each spiral galaxy doing this, it either causes the space in between them to grow. Or the spiral galaxies inward spiral motion, causes an outward spiral wave, a repulsive force, and on average all spiral galaxies sending these outward waves in every direction, causes each spiral galaxy on average to be repelled away from one another. thus, that action is 'dark energy' at play. Also most likely closely related to the age of the matter/energy in the galaxy and the work it is doing through space, is proportional over time, to the amount space is expanding around it.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 

In some galaxies we do see evidence of matter spiraling into the supermassive black hole at the galaxy's core. To use an expression, the black holes can "belch" when they consume matter like this. Looking at other galaxies in wavelengths other than visible light helps us understand how much "belching" is going on:

Black Hole Unleashes Supermassive Belch

So why did the supermassive black hole in the galaxy’s core belch? As we’ve learned from observations of the black hole behemoth in the center of the Milky Way, black holes consume anything that strays too close. Any dust, gas, planets, aliens or stars that fall into the black hole’s gravitational well will be ripped apart and pulled into a violent accretion disk surrounding the black hole’s event horizon.

Through processes that aren’t fully understood, some of this matter is accelerated and ejected from the black hole’s poles at relativistic speeds, generating superheated streams of gas. In the case of NGC 660, its black hole is likely feeding, erupting huge streams of radio-emitting gas...
So radio frequency observations show that indeed some matter is falling into the black hole in this and other galaxies. But I don't think this explains the rotational curves of galaxies without using dark matter. There are also some limitations on the rate at which matter can fall into the black hole where the galaxy would still exist after billions of years. But it obviously does happen to some extent, at least in some galaxies where this has been observed.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Would I be wrong in thinking that magnetism works by electrons distorting or creating wells in space-time (just as gravity works by mass distorting or creating wells in space-time)?





top topics
 
14
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join