Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Opposing Mainstream Physics - Swan001 (opposition) vs ATS

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by orangutang
 


They proved the sun runs on hydrogen reactions when they made the hydrogen bomb work. Where do you think the idea came from in the first place? It was because they figured out that a nuclear reaction is the only one xapable of sustaining such a thing for sonlong at such a power level.

Your acting like the big bang happened yesterday so everything is still flying apart. This is notthe case, billions and billions of year have passed, kore than enough for gravity to clump together galaxies, and then pull galaxies towards eachother, which is what is happening.

Just because the river runs downstreM doesnt mean there are no places in it where the current swirls around or even upstream on a small scale in places. Which is an apt description of of what is occuring.




posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Sorry jigger, you have a good head on your shoulders, and are thinking critically, which is just...awesome.

Your not understanding a couple of things though, which isnt a failing on your part, just not part of everyday life in your day.

Time is relative, to the person, and the person observing him, the speed of light is absolute, in all situations, where as I cannot go 99/100 the speed ofnlight and shoot a light ray that now onky goes 1/100 the speed of light faster than me. Instead, it would leave me going the exact speed of light, which is a constant in a vacuum, and unchangeable.

So if I travel 1 mph, and shine a flashkight straight in front of me, it does not go C, (C is the speed of kight in physics and math btw) plus 1 mph, it still goes the exact same speed C, yet it was C for the observer, and C away from me. Meaning my time dialated and slowed my time relative only to me down.

Also time dialatikn is real and exactly measured in relation to gravity and velocity, it is even used by us todY, google gps and how it works, this will provide a better explanation than I probably can, I am not a very patient or apt teacher, I am the doing type.

So if your astronauts left earth at C for 25 light years out, and came the same back, 50 years would havenpassed here for us, but jot for them.

Time woukdnt have changed for us here as we were still at rest relative to the astronauts, it is their time relative to them that slowed.

Outside the ship, watching it fly by, time would move normal for you, inside the ship time would move normal for the crew, when the inside of the ship was observed from someone outside it, everyone inside would be moving in super slow motion.

If the ship started out at normL speed and acceleratex, the closer the ship got to light speed, the slower everyone and everything inside would appear to go, inckuding bread molding, rust forming water dropping etc.

On the inverse, to those on the ship, everything outside would be moving in fast worward, like watching a time lapse video.

Think of it this way, tye SR-71blackbird doesnt carry anyweapons, as all the weapons of the time wouldnt be able to fireas bullets can onky go X fast , and the speed of the plane wouldnt let the bullets even leave the barrel. As just befUse I can throw an 80 mph fast ball, doesnt mean I can ride in a pick up bed at 80 and now throw it 160, it wouod onky go 80, as I am still in the stopped air, but if I am in a bus, where the air around me relative to the stopped air outside was motiknless for me was actually moving 80 also, so I coukd then throw it 80 inside this reference framme, as it is removed from the outside, thus relative to the inside only.

Hope this helped, if jot ask phage, ge has the ability to explain these kinda things better than I.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Out of curiosity, what is your formal educational background, and your credentials?

Thank you.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


Light is a constant, in a vacuum it races at the same speed at all times, use a different medium, and light will always travel at the exact same speed inside of it every time. Every single medium has a different speed for light to propogate through it. Your using semantics here.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


No, they are not sensitive to elevation etc... by elevating it your moving it further from the center og gravity, thus having less gravity effecting it vs the other, or "relative" to the other, it causes this discrepency, this is the proof of time dilation in the presence and absence og gravity.

Google atomic clocks, I assure you it is not a malfunction, it is functioning perfectly, time is dialating diferenty for both relative to their presence in the gravity well. This is an exact measurement, doesnt matter if the cloxk is kechanical digital or other, the exact same measured reukt will occur, it is not the clocks function, it is time dilation.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

reply to post by Bedlam
 

reply to post by topherman420
 

reply to post by alfa1
 

reply to post by inverslyproportional
 

reply to post by boymonkey74
 



Hello to y'all! I'm glad to see real defence - that first reply I got was a troll, he kept roaming in a couple of my threads - seems to take things really personnal. Hopefully he won't disturb us.

Remember this is a friendly debate. I don't want anybody to feel attacked - I am just exposing other concepts. So, no, Arbritageur, I'm not the God of Physics - and I doubt you are, too. Physics isn't supposed to be a religion. Science is a constant discovery. I have the right to question it, just like Galileo had the right to question his era's "science" belief that Earth was flat. If nobody will have the guts to question, how will science evolve?

All right, let's get down to business!

So, most of you guys are starting with the Relativity side. For now, most of you guys's defence was that "relativity is a proven fact (not a theory, although Einstein did presented it as a theory in 1905) because of "centuries of observation". But to that I would like to ask, who made these observations? How did they eliminated bias during experimentation? Even if time does slow down because of Earth's gravitational pull in higher altitude, What leads them to think it's because of Einstein's Relativity? If you put a caesium clock out of Earth's mass energy, less energy will be applied against the decay - thus, slower will the atom seem to decay. As you know, higher energy level do accelerate proton decay rate (for instance in the Sun's core). A model of mine show that bosons, such as gravitons, would accelerate what you call "elementary" (my model is preonic) particle decay.

Now, a little thought experiment.

Let's say there's a cepheid type variable star. Now let's say you are inside a spaceship, and I am inside a spaceship. We both orbit in close formation around this star. We both go in the same direction. Let's say you're 500 meters in front, and I'm following behind you.

Now the cepheid star is special: although most stars pulsate over a period of days, this star pulsate over the period of exactly 1 second. This star is the Third Party.

As you and I orbit the variable star, which have a luminosity spike each seconds, we synchronize our two clocks so that we both read exactly 00:00. Each time the star pulses, a second elapses on our clock. So we are both synchronized with the star and with each other.

All right. So, suddenly, you decide to try and warp your time frame. So you jump to near light speed, and start orbiting the star at that speed. Your clock still works fine (still perfectly synchronized with the star's pulses). But if I were to watch you're clock, I would see a shift - I would see that it looks like it turns slower than mine.

So you make it to the opposite side of the star, and as any spaceship in orbit would do, you come back near your initial position - 500 m in front of me. Once you're there, you stop (you go at the same speed than me) and we exchange notes. According to Einstein you should have aged slower (relative to me) just there. Thus your clock should show, you know, something like 00:05 and mine something like 00:07. But that would not be the case. The reason is because for both of us, during that speeding-up event, we both saw 7 pulses from the star. As both your clock and my clock functionned correctly (even though the time frames seemed different) relative to the star (which was always at equal distance from you and from me), neither you and me would see their clock de-synchronize from the star. Thus, both our times kept flowing at the same rate, even though I was "immobile" and you were speeding at near light speed.

Now take out the star reference. And instead of a circular trajectory, make that a linear one. It means if you were to synchronize you're clock with mine, and then go all the way up to Alpha Centauri at near light speed, you wouldn't actually age slower - and even though you're light-years away, we'll still be perfectly synchronized as you land on a base around that star.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Tired light? I'm talking about photon interaction with space's zero point energy. Surely you are not suggesting that photon interaction laws conveniently ceases when one looks up at distant galaxies?



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
As has been pointed out, you are simply rephrasing the statement. The redshift is caused by the interaction of photons in spacetime, which is expanding.

As I understand it, Mainstream thinks spacetime actually "stretches". Now if you send an EM signal through this stretched space-time, would this signal get redshifted?

Nope. Because wavelength's spacial and temporal references has themselves been stretches. Thus, as light does have more distance to cover, it also has a proportionally "extra" time to cover the said distance. The overall result is no change in the properties of the signal.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
A thread trying to prove/disprove physics content with no math.
smh.


Stephen Hawkin himself once said that physics shouldn't be all about maths. Many mathematical concepts can be expresses as visual concept - see R. Feynman.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


"general rush-away-from-each-other movement, as many galaxies actually move towards one another and even collide."

indeed.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by RoScoLaz
 


Yeah! If spacetime really stretches, how come does these galaxy still succeed at colliding one another? When you have raisins in a bread, and bake this bread, raisins will NEVER collide with each other.

Now, I know, gravitational attraction plays a part in all this. I imagine they'll say that at some point gravitational becomes stronger than "spacetime stretching" itself.
edit on 3-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 




When you have polka dots on a fabric, and stretch this fabric, polka dots NEVER collide with each other.

You fail to understand the concept of inflation.
At the most basic level your analogy doesn't work because fabric is two dimensional.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yeah you're right it's 2 dimensional. I assume you are criticizing me for not using the bread analogy? Here, I changed my analogy.

Are you going to expose exactly what I "fail to understand in the concept of inflation"? Perhaps you know something which explains it all? Please share.
edit on 3-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 

Bread analogy? I don't know what you mean.
But perhaps you might consider that galaxies do not have fixed locations within space. They move in different directions and rates, affected by gravity. Perhaps consider fish swimming in a river. They are all carried by the current but they are not all going in the same direction. They can catch and eat one another.

To get back to inflation, since you seem to understand the concept, do you know what the rate of expansion is? If so, perhaps you would like to compare that rate to the rate of (independent) motion of the galaxies.

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



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 



No, they are not sensitive to elevation etc...

No? Then why do you go on to explain why they are?

From Arb's post, this is what prompted my comment on them being sensitive to elevation and motion in the first place


In a series of experiments described in the September 24 issue of Science, researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder, Colo., registered differences in the passage of time between two high-precision optical atomic clocks when one was elevated by just a third of a meter or when one was set in motion at speeds of less than 10 meters per second.

www.scientificamerican.com...



Google atomic clocks, I assure you it is not a malfunction, it is functioning perfectly,

NEVER implied it was a malfunction of the clock. The clock that remains on Earth is calibrated to run accurately according to the conditions to which it is exposed. When an accurately calibrated clock is subjected to different conditions it behaves differently, no surprise there. To me it's a matter of calibration, not any variance in time itself.



This is an exact measurement, doesnt matter if the cloxk is kechanical digital or other, the exact same measured reukt will occur, it is not the clocks function, it is time dilation.

Has this been tested? Digital timepieces tested simultaneously with atomic clocks as in the Hafele-Keating experiment?



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Bread analogy? I don't know what you mean.

Well, bread is in 3-D is it not?




But perhaps you might consider that galaxies are do not have fixed locations within space.

Funny, I suggested just that in my thread
Galaxies Discs Can Move But no physicists ever agreed at that time.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 




But no physicists ever agreed at that time.

Just because none agreed with your theory doesn't mean that they don't think galaxies move through space.
edit on 3/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


I agree. Earth's gravitational field is a source of energy, which is carried by bosons which we call gravitons. Just like what happens in the sun, higher energy will accelerate caesium decay - thus the clock. No spacetime distortion, just plain exposure to gravity bosons.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Just because none agreed with your theory doesn't mean that they don't think galaxies move.

I am relieved to know that cosmologist did, after all, considered galactic movement. I was under the impression, when I talked to other physicists, that cosmologists never did.

But I still don't think spacetime stretch will explain redshift. Why? well, because wavelength's spacial and temporal references has themselves been stretches. Thus, as light does have more distance to cover, it also has a proportionally "extra" time to cover the said distance. The overall result is no change in the properties of the signal.
edit on 3-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


I was under the impression, when I talked to other physicists, that cosmologists never did.
Then apparently you misunderstood what you were being told.



But I still don't think spacetime stretch will explain redshift.
Again your use of an inadequate analogy is confusing you. Inflation doesn't stretch space, it is an expansion of space.





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join