Opposing Mainstream Physics - Swan001 (opposition) vs ATS

page: 16
14
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
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)?


Yes, you would. And Aristotle was not Belgian.




posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
I, as the oppostion, say, "quarks don't exist". Prove me wrong.


The whole idea of this thread is heavy trolling, so I don't like it very much. However, I'll comment on this one item.

Saying "quarks don't exist" cannot be proven wrong, because it's a negation and not an affirmation. When you come up with a model of the hadron structure, please post it here and people will take a look. You can't prove to me that there are no dinosaurs in the woods behind my house. Does it make me smart if I tease you with that? Hardly. Quite the opposite.

We have a theory that is amazingly well borne out in the experiment. We see jets in hadron scattering, and we see spectra in hadron mass that are explained well by the model.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi
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)?


Yes, you would. And Aristotle was not Belgian.


How does magnetism work then? How do the electrons in one material (magnetic) cause a material (magnetic) to come towards it until touching, from a distance, without touching? Please describe the physical action that takes place.

Also please note that I did not mean to imply that the phenomenon of magnetism is equal to that of gravity when I said 'just like gravity works'. I only meant to express the similar relationship, in that both actions (gravity and magnetism) are situations where material causes a local change to space in a manner that can induce an affect or apparent force on material which enters the space according to the extent of the materials force on that surrounding space.
edit on 8-3-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-3-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

"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)

According to my theory / hypotheses, presence of mass in space compresses time and the compression is directly proportional to the mass. 2 bodies seperated by space, as time is variable and analogus to an elastic band ever trying to regain its original shape. So the 2 bodies try to gravitate towards each other, just as an elastic trying to regain its shape. I do not wish to go into engineering terms here.
There you have it, force of gravity, without any einsteinian gobbledegooky curvature of space.
Now I do not as yet have all the answers to all the oddities in the universe.
Not to take away anything ( by way of science ) from God, who created all the above



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi
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)?


Yes, you would. And Aristotle was not Belgian.


How does magnetism work then? How do the electrons in one material (magnetic) cause a material (magnetic) to come towards it until touching, from a distance, without touching? Please describe the physical action that takes place.


If you feel uncomfortable with the notion of the field, there is little I can do. You see, you mention "touching". That's a concept what you feel comfortable with. It's very mechanistic and it's not how nature works.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
So the moon is in free fall around the earth

Hm... just so you know, the Moon is actually going away from Earth. I was surprised to learn that recently. I was sure its gravitational interaction with Earth would make it spiral down.
edit on 9-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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.

Hm, it would be cool if one could know more precisely the rate of this spiraling down...
edit on 9-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


So we do not have direct evidence or observation, it's just that the model fits so damn well our observations so far. I see.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


So we do not have direct evidence or observation, it's just that the model fits so damn well our observations so far. I see.


Congratulations! You just discovered how scientific method works. It's amazing though that up till now, you didn't realize that there is precious little in way of "direct evidence". Human senses are quite limited, what we do observe is done very, very indirectly in most areas of science. Molecular structure of most compounds was determined without the use of electron microscopy (which is not direct either). And you can't taste helium present in the Sun's atmosphere. So yes, that's how science works.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
Hm, it would be cool if one could know more precisely the rate of this spiraling down...
There are some indications of the rate by how much "feeding" goes on with black holes. The biggest consumers I can think of were quasars, where the rate of matter going into the black hole was quite high as indicated by the high amount of radiation emitted.


They tend to inhabit the very centers of active, young galaxies, and are among the most luminous, powerful, and energetic objects known in the universe, emitting up to a thousand times the energy output of the Milky Way.
So it's not quite like sneaking to the refrigerator for a midnight snack when a black hole consumes matter...it does appear to be observable as it can be rather violent and emit a lot of radiation.

In our own spiral galaxy the rate is modest...the black hole will go from not consuming much of anything to consuming a gas cloud, and we will be watching.

A big meal coming up for galactic black hole

At the moment, the black hole at the heart of the Milky Way is going hungry. But its diet may soon be over: a gas cloud has ventured too close to the super massive black hole and will be devoured by it over the next few years. The feeding of the black hole will be observed by astronomers at first-hand, who should also be able to note a largely increased X-ray emission at the time. Even now they can see how the huge gravitational pull of the black hole is causing some distortion to the gas cloud.
I don't think it's an exact science yet where we can tell the exact rate of matter going into the black hole, but we can certainly get make some educated guesstimates since there does seem to be a correlation between mass consumed and radiation emitted. But as that quote suggests, the rate in our own galaxy immediately prior to that gas cloud has been negligible.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
It's amazing though that up till now, you didn't realize that there is precious little in way of "direct evidence".

I did know that. I just wanted to be sure that other people in these threads, like those who were in the opposition, also realize that. Naturally already Heisenberg told exactly why we can't directly observe particles.

I read that the best evidences we got for top quark existence is because the Fermi accelerator smashed a p+ with a p-, and out from this collision were tracks of an top and an antitop. Now this puzzles me, though. I was certain a particle converted to a photon of its energy during annihilation with its antiparticle. How come this didn't happened in the Fermi accelerator? Did the velocity somehow prevented the 2 particles from annihilating?



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Okay, thanks for the links!


I'll definitively keep an eye opened for the findings about the nebula being devoured by the black hole.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by buddhasystem
It's amazing though that up till now, you didn't realize that there is precious little in way of "direct evidence".

I did know that. I just wanted to be sure that other people in these threads, like those who were in the opposition, also realize that. Naturally already Heisenberg told exactly why we can't directly observe particles.

I read that the best evidences we got for top quark existence is because the Fermi accelerator smashed a p+ with a p-, and out from this collision were tracks of an top and an antitop. Now this puzzles me, though. I was certain a particle converted to a photon of its energy during annihilation with its antiparticle. How come this didn't happened in the Fermi accelerator? Did the velocity somehow prevented the 2 particles from annihilating?


a) you can't see tracks of quarks in any detector, because quarks so far have not been shown to exist in a free state. The discovery at FNAL was very, very complex in nature and involved resolving difficult kinematics of the top decay products.

b) you are partly right, sort of - once a pair is created, the annihilation cross section isn't big enough for them to immediately coalesce back into something else.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


As science searches the sub-atomic world man is finding more and more questions INSTEAD OF ANSWERS.
Matter is not solid but is generated in frames, FOR THE OBSERVER at that point in space time.
It seems we are in a huge quantum computer that controls all forces and energy forms, AND IS DESIGHNED TO HENDER SEARCHERS LIKE OURSELVES.
The more we seem to learn the less we understand, WHY... because every thing is an illusion inside this quantum computer.There are NO CONSTANTS to measure with, light has been slowed to 38 miles an hour in the lab,sub atomic particles violate laws of science and travel multiples higher than the speed of light. BUT mass cant go as fast as light according to relativity?I think the creator is having a good laugh at our attempts to TAKE OVER HIS DOMANE (NATURE).
At the risk of offending any god haters on this thread, Here is a description of the quantum computer we all exist in.............AND I SAW A SEA OF GLASS MINGLED WITH FIRE, this is at the throne of the creator and is in my opinion a massive crystal phonic processor used to create the universe.
My user name also refers to the theory of super gravity, they are thinking all matter and energy can be traced to ONE UNIFIYING FORCE GENERATING LIGHT, MAGNITISM ,GRAVITY ETC.If this is reality ,It would explain many mysteries of our universe.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi
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)?


Yes, you would. And Aristotle was not Belgian.


How does magnetism work then? How do the electrons in one material (magnetic) cause a material (magnetic) to come towards it until touching, from a distance, without touching? Please describe the physical action that takes place.


If you feel uncomfortable with the notion of the field, there is little I can do. You see, you mention "touching". That's a concept what you feel comfortable with. It's very mechanistic and it's not how nature works.


In what way does a field exist? is it caused by electron radiating energy? The notion of the field is the notion of the ability of space to become a field, or the ability of an electron to distort space into a magnetic field. The field is distorted space, whether it is gravity or magnetism, you can play semantics and call space a field if that makes you feel comfortable.

I will drop my argument and hunch that 2 magnets will attract because of an effect the electrons have on the space between them. If you can describe the physical mechanism in which electrons in one magnet, send out energy that can grab the electrons in the other magnet and pull the 2 magnets toward one another.
edit on 9-3-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by ImaFungi
So the moon is in free fall around the earth

Hm... just so you know, the Moon is actually going away from Earth. I was surprised to learn that recently. I was sure its gravitational interaction with Earth would make it spiral down.
edit on 9-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)


slghdjsklfhjkdshfkjsdhfdfkshfkshdf

The moon is going away from the earth a tiny amount, compared to the constant amount of it going towards the earth. This is why and how the moon is still going around the earth. If a child asked you, is the moon going towards the earth, or away from it you would say: just so you know, the moon is actually going away from the earth. ?

If that kid was smart and honest, he would ask, then why in 4 billion years is the moon still relatively close to the earth, and constantly orbiting it?



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
If that kid was smart and honest, he would ask, then why in 4 billion years is the moon still relatively close to the earth, and constantly orbiting it?
My nephew is in elementary school, and he has no difficulty grasping the concept that the moon was much closer to Earth 4 billion years ago, so I'm not sure why you find this concept difficult. The moon is not all that close now.

But don't feel bad if you're clueless about how far away the moon is. As this video shows, lots of people are and think like you do that the moon isn't that far away:

How Far Is the Moon from Earth?


The truth is, it's much farther than many people think. What's especially sad in your case however, is this fact has already been carefully explained to you repeatedly, so you should already know this, unlike the poor souls who were caught off guard in this video.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ImaFungi
If that kid was smart and honest, he would ask, then why in 4 billion years is the moon still relatively close to the earth, and constantly orbiting it?
My nephew is in elementary school, and he has no difficulty grasping the concept that the moon was much closer to Earth 4 billion years ago, so I'm not sure why you find this concept difficult. The moon is not all that close now.

But don't feel bad if you're clueless about how far away the moon is. As this video shows, lots of people are and think like you do that the moon isn't that far away:

How Far Is the Moon from Earth?


The truth is, it's much farther than many people think. What's especially sad in your case however, is this fact has already been carefully explained to you repeatedly, so you should already know this, unlike the poor souls who were caught off guard in this video.


You are a foolish fool (ill add another fool, so you dont think the 2 negatives cancel out).

Is the moon further from earth then the nearest star (besides the sun)? Is the moon further from earth then the nearest planet? Why does it seem the moon is the closest body to us if it is so far away and has continually been traveling away from earth?



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Is the moon further from earth then the nearest star (besides the sun)?
I was talking about the moon being closer 4 billion years ago than it is now. The distance to the nearest star is totally irrelevant but if this is how your logic works by introducing other stars in a discussion about how the moon is moving away from the Earth, this may explain why you're having difficulty with the concept. Just stick to what's relevant.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Is the moon further from earth then the nearest star (besides the sun)?
I was talking about the moon being closer 4 billion years ago than it is now. The distance to the nearest star is totally irrelevant but if this is how your logic works by introducing other stars in a discussion about how the moon is moving away from the Earth, this may explain why you're having difficulty with the concept. Just stick to what's relevant.


I was using it as a relative reference of distance. Just like you used the fact the moons orbit is receding by a relatively tiny distance, when I was discussing gravity, and the fact that gravity is a phenomenon which tends to cause an object to continuously fall towards an object with greater mass. The fact the moons orbit over time recedes a relatively small degree is a true fact and important to know and consider. But it does not falsify the general fact that gravity, is the force an object is constantly attracted to another. Not the force at which an object constantly travels away from another object with mass.






top topics



 
14
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join