It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

page: 6
25
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 08:46 AM

Mass does equal size,
Mass and size have nothing to do with each other,

Huh? You must be tired. Sorry If I'm burning out your brain cells.

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 08:47 AM

Originally posted by jiggerj

Mass does equal size,
Mass and size have nothing to do with each other,

Huh? You must be tired. Sorry If I'm burning out your brain cells.

LOL oops, " mass doesnt equal size"

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 09:01 AM

Originally posted by inverslyproportional

Originally posted by jiggerj

Mass does equal size,
Mass and size have nothing to do with each other,

Huh? You must be tired. Sorry If I'm burning out your brain cells.

LOL oops, " mass doesnt equal size"

Ok I am too tired going to bed now, be back tonight approx 8 PM central time.

See you guys around the science forums.

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 09:30 AM

E=mc^2 is the equation that shows that mass / matter is energy. Mass is basically a measure of the energy content of matter. Accelerating matter increases its energy, therefore you could say its mass has increased too, even though the amount of matter hasn't changed.

Thanks to people like you I now understand this. Though I must admit I'm a little P.O.'d that the scientific community doesn't just call it an increase in energy instead of calling it an increase in mass. And, I'm disgusted at myself for not knowing this sooner. I hate having misinformation in my head. HATE IT HATE IT HATE IT! Without truth we have nothing. We are living a wasted life based on lies.

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 12:53 PM
Picked this up half way through. All the space debris (and the moon) are falling to earth, just at different speeds. This is why people float in space, the space craft is falling to earth at the rate that it is being pulled. You can have the same effect if you fall in a lift.
There is a point between the earth and moon where the gravitational pull cancel each other out and you will get weightlessness here, when going to the moon. But objects orbitting the earth. Are way too close to the earth to have any major influence from the moon.
On the question of stars and planets, the sun gaseous constitution is very similar to Jupiter. Had Jupiter been bigger, it could have easily become its own sun

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 02:53 PM

Very awesome explanation. I think I understand why one must expend exponential amounts of energy to continually increase the velocity of an object approaching C.

Imagine a simple car, just wooden frame and wheels. And we have a device that sends this car 10 mph on a flat road. In order to increase the velocity of this car from that point, we would have to travel in the same direction as the car at the same velocity (which is expending energy) then use more energy to 'push' the car faster. Say we get the car to 20 mph and we are going 20 mph, since we are in the same reference frame it would almost be a simulation of gravity, we would be providing all the energy that pushes the car and it would seem attracted to our side facing our direction of travel. Then to get the car to a greater velocity, we would have to utilize even more raw energy to push further forth.

Question: Why is there the speed limit of light? Would a universe be possible with no speed limit, or does this 'top down' or bottom up, orderly law of creation, allow order to exist on all other levels? What does it say about the universe that the speed of light is exactly as it is, what is the significance of this value when compared to the nature of matter and energy and space and time?

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 02:55 PM

Then how do you explain Ceres? (1/4 size of moon and round, in asteroid belt)

Or the fact that things tend to want to form a spherical shape in space? (queue nasa videos of liquid droplets creating wobbly spheres before being consumed)

I'd say some of our educated guesses on things are just that ... and maybe we don't have the complete picture to expand on our foundations and elaborate on our guesses.

I'll leave this quote as I think all humble and honest 'scholars' should keep this perpsective;

"The wise man knows he knows nothing, the fool thinks he knows it all"

I feel, at least in linguistic terms, science makes claims that sound in the latter; foolish and spoken in ways that make the ideas seem concrete. As if our studies weren't but a a blink of an eye compared to what we claim is the age of the known universe.

I am not bothered at all, nor do I disagree with most of the theories; but I do agree with the implied closed minds of how the subject matter gets dealt with ... until they rewrite it based on new findings and understandings of everything.

I'd almost be open to the world is flat ... because as we know, some scientists consider we may be living in a hologram, and holograms have this ability to appear three dimensional while also being flat. From the information I have, I tend to heavily lean on the three dimensional sphere most of us believe it to be to this day. I don't believe the chances of that changing is very high (I think I have a higher chance of winning consecutive power ball lotteries :p) ... but I'm not saying some form of flat earth isn't possible, with even our primitive holographic displays being quite convincing ... and I think we are still quite primitive as a species both technologically, emotionally, and in thought/intellectually, and may be for quite some time to come, with minor breakthroughs on occasion that opens us up to small leaps in global maturity.

My best question is this:
How do we know we have gravity right; or that as we believe it to be, is really what is the 'glue' of the cosmos?
We are trying to fill in gaps with things like dark matter. What if we have the foundation wrong?

Wouldn't Occam's razor dictate that in the choice between something simple, like magnetism and electro-magnetism which we can prove vs something such as the curvature of space time ... the answer would most likely be the more simple of the two?

Not that I disagree with the math and theories, but possibly the one encompasses the other, instead of exclusivity. (the equations of gravity could work for a subset of the attraction of bodies based on atomic attraction, not the bending of space and time)

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 03:53 PM

Adults don't but their larvae might. Adult yellow jackets eat sugary stuff like sap but they are hunters in the bug world. While they don't eat meat themselves, they'll chew it up and spit it back out for the larvae to eat. The larvae will eat this thoroughly masticated meat and, in turn, secrete a sugar...which the adults will eat. lol
Thankyou, WhiteAlice, I grew up around Yellow Jackets and never knew that.

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 05:37 PM

Q. I break laws all the time. So why can't I break the 2law of thermodynamics. It's a big pain in my aas

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 05:49 PM

Originally posted by tinyDAWK
why can't I break the 2law of thermodynamics.
You can. You just can't do it for long enough to accomplish anything, except to publish a paper saying that you did it.

Sort of like you can get a royal flush in poker but it's pretty rare.

www.nature.com...

Researchers have shown for the first time that, on the level of thousands of atoms and molecules, fleeting energy increases violate the second law of thermodynamics.

edit on 9-6-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:42 PM

I hope I'm not reiterating someone else's posting.
However, I'll forgo any equations for now to avoid unnecessary confusion.
To your question about other planets existing without a sun, or other celestial influences; I have a couple questions:
1) What's your criteria/ attributes would any "planet"/ celestial object need to be labeled a "planet"?
2) Would it's existence be resultant of stellar influence or coincident to it?
Utilizing Einstein's energy to matter equation doesn't address certain aspects or conditions of celestial object formation. Typically, objects larger than simple molecules (planets, planetoids, comets, asteroids, etc...) form
either during the coalescing phase of stellar (star) formation, or from coincident collisions from systemic bodies (planets within a given solar system), exogenous objects such as comets or both together. The coalescent/ system forming planets, such as in larger nebulae where some of the gas cloud near where a star is forming coalesces into gas giants, or planets.
That being said, though I haven't noticed any reporting of such formations, if (for example) a planet was forming within a nebula before being part of a proto-star's system and were "tugged" by, or simply pushed from the collision with another large object passing through the nebula, then the gravitational "tug" could conceivably send it on an independent trajectory. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if within a parsec or two of either a less active SGR (neutron star, or black hole); might be the essential combo of matter, gravitational force and radiant energy for possibly independent non-star objects to form. But considering the volatility of such environments from gravitational sheer, magnitude of gamma emissions and time/ space differentials, I'm not expecting it either.
Therefore, I'm not sure that independent formation can happen without the gravitational influence from a highly dense nebula and/ or near-by star.

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:53 PM

I was just thinking that it would be an efficient way to reenter... Not to mention the amount of good it would do, if let's say a craft made of said tech near a sun with super cooling agent within its walls to set the differential!
edit on 9-6-2013 by Mosthated718bx because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 08:44 PM
Something people might like.
The Electromagnetic Spectrum (funny version)

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 09:19 PM

My first question is this:

All of the planets in our solar system orbit around the sun. Are there other systems out there where planets orbit a body that ISN'T a sun? I'm not talking about moons orbiting planets. I'm just curious to see if the center body of a system has to be a sun in order to prove it has more mass - mass that created so much pressure that it became a great ball of fire.

The solar system was originally a dust cloud. The dust was made by supernova fusion detonations every million years or so.

Gravity, over time, moved each dust grain towards the center of mass of the entire cloud. The sum of all forces in the universe put the various dust particles into concentrations and agglomerations that formed the system objects

If the center object wasn't a sun, then the system would need to be very small, relative to our system.

An object massive enough to trap planets in orbit would always be a sun, iginited by gravity and sustained by fusion.

How many phenomena organize themselves along lines similar to the formation of a solar system?

There could be social, economic, biological, psychological, and even other macro-physical sytems that have a functional or topographical developement or schematic similar to a solar system.

Nature has alot of dual use.
edit on 9-6-2013 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 09:27 PM

Question: Is it possible to have a solar system in which one of the planets revolves around the star, in the opposite direction as the other planets? Is it possible for a moon to orbit a planet in the opposite direction of the planets rotations?

Counter rotating orbits would depend on the gravity field and the inertia that was present when the system began to condense.

Closer to the center of the galaxy, a system could form in between multiple massive gravity sources. The dust closer to a given close star could be moving opposite to the dust closer to a star on the other side.

A system made from multiple dust clouds, each cloud having its own velocity, could also form counter rotating planets.

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 09:45 PM

How does my consciousness (how does conciousness work?)

Maybe consciousness is alot like a solar system. Nested networks.

I haven't seen a scientific decription of the physiological process of consciousness. I think the closest science could come to that is a list of the parts of the brain needed to be conscious.

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 09:54 PM

Question: How is information in the brain stored? When I close my eyes and imagined things; a dog, a red dog, a house, a red house, a specific house from child hood, a girl, a specific girl; I see these things in my head (thats where I see everything technically). Physically what is making these images in my head? And what allows my imagination to be so malleable (dreams for example, large 'scape' that is constantly changing very quickly). So when I see a girl in a red dress in my childhood, and I remember that, how does that work? Is it like a film camera where the light reflecting off her goes into my eye and imprints some type of magnetic tape, for me to recall at will? (how does recalling memories at will work?

Last I read, memory was linked to protien in the nerve cells. That is the magnetic tape. I don't see the connection there directly, but that is what the article said. It is probably on a pay per view science magazine site right now.

Memories in general are not stand alone data. Everything is connected. The brain remembers by comparing differences and similarities to general types. Maybe the general types are hard wired into our brains, like language and walking, or maybe the general types are learned like math and art.

The more you know the more you able to know

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 10:07 PM

Question: What is EM radiation fundamentally?

EM radiation is pure energy of a specific magnitude,
that manifests itself as a wave of electricity coincident in space with a wave of magnetism,
moving at the speed of light,
in a relativistically straight line.

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 10:17 PM

Science question.... Science is about things that are already proofs? Or could be proofs.. I guess a question that lacks understanding is appropriate here rather than question the unknown which would likely lead to conjectures.

Okay, I guess I do have a question..

Geothermal Energy.. Why isn't it used as a primary form of energy? Surely we all know the stats..

Science is proved by a repeatable experiment. Any scientific fact can be proven by doing the experiment and getting the results predicted.

Geothermal is essentially a form of mechanical energy. The depth needed to get high energy heat is said to be too great to make it cost effective most places. Since the longer the pipe the greater the resistance, a really deep heat source would also need a wider pipe. Maybe that's the whole story.

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 10:28 PM

Forgive me if I am incorrect with my recollection. This is something I have never been able to grasp.

Why is it theorized that if we were able to travel close to the speed of light our mass would increase incrementally as we approach that speed?

Can you explain how that happens and why?

E=MC^2

Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.

Another way to see that is--

energy equals some amount of mass.

A mass moving very fast has more energy and therefore more mass.

Inertia is often treated the same as mass.

new topics

top topics

25