The Science Thread here

page: 7
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 



The space between atoms is similar (in scale) to the space between stars. Its that big. If you could stand on a star (nucleus of an atom), the next nucleus is four light years away. What we perceive as matter, like the floor you are standing on, is made up of mostly empty space. Little tiny particles down there whizzing around at the speed of light.

Thats it. I know thats hard to understand. When you compare the size of atoms to molecules, a molecule is even bigger than an atom. Water (H2O) is just three atoms "bonded" together. Inside the molecule the atoms again, are mostly empty space.


Sometimes the description of the path of light sounds like absorbtion-reemittion, like through glass crystal.

Also what causes refraction of light through materials if the photons never touch anything?

Is space changed by the presence of regularly spaced atoms?




posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   
On the subject of Ceres

There are a number of theories though the most popular (Which interestingly from the post I could not quite understand if the author of the post already dismissed any theories offered without contemplating them or their merits.) is that the asteroid belt represents a failed planet. The reason for failure... Jupiter.



This plot shows the distribution of asteroids in the inner solar system... you can see the two dense groups that lead and follow Jupiter, these are locked in the L4 and L5 Legrangian points. This should show you exactly how much the gravitational field of Jupiter can have on objects, and it isn't too far fetched to say that if a planet was forming in between Mars and Jupiter when both planets themselves were young, that Jupiter gathering large quantities of mass would cause a disruption on the formation of that planet, and possibly stunt the growth of Mars.

Further to support this is the discovery of the Kirkwood Gaps, these are gaps in the asteroid belts were the orbital period of the asteroids would be integer ratios of the orbit of Jupiter, this too suggests the influence of a orbital resonance with Jupiter.

Also there are several large asteroid belt objects other than Ceres in the asteroid belt... Ceres isn't a special large object, its just the largest known one.
edit on 9-6-2013 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-6-2013 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-6-2013 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 


Light is an electromagnetic wave... those fields are effected by the dielectric properties of matter, these properties depend upon the electron density, and matter density in a material, hence the fact that you can tune the refractive index of glass by dissolving different additives to it



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   
How long does it take for atoms and photons to run down and stop moving?

Are they examples of perpetual motion?



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 



Light is an electromagnetic wave... those fields are effected by the dielectric properties of matter, these properties depend upon the electron density, and matter density in a material, hence the fact that you can tune the refractive index of glass by dissolving different additives to it



That is an empirical and very useful description of the behavior of light.

Does any mainstream science consider differing qualities of space itself?

Do black hole event horizon anti-particles prove zero point energy?



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
How long does it take for atoms and photons to run down and stop moving?

Are they examples of perpetual motion?
It depends on how you define perpetual motion.

If you use this definition:

www.websters-online-dictionary.org...

Perpetual motion is a condition in which work is continuously done without an external supply of energy.
When the photon strikes a solar panel, it can be used to do work but if it came from the sun it only lasted about 8 minutes.

If you make up your own definition by trying to combine the definitions of "perpetual" and "motion", the combination of those two individual definitions says nothing about work.

So if you leave "work" out of the definition, then perhaps lots of things can be perpetual or nearly so, but this is not a very good way to communicate because when people say perpetual motion machines are impossible they are referring to the work aspect so it's unwise to omit that.

By the way I pointed out that Einstein warned against your explanation of the e=mc^2 answer earlier in the thread, even though some people ignored his warning, so you may want to read about that.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 


Sometimes the description of the path of light sounds like absorbtion-reemittion, like through glass crystal.

You mean like current passes thru atoms in a conductor, jumping from valence shell to valence shell?


Also what causes refraction of light through materials if the photons never touch anything?

If they have no mass, how can they "touch anything"? Doesn't light change direction, slow down, and change wavelength as it crosses boundaries between mediums? The "refract" part...


Is space changed by the presence of regularly spaced atoms?

Regular spaced? Are stars "regular spaced"?

Daaamn, you tough. I would like to know what you think about it. (very good questions)



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 


How long does it take for atoms and photons to run down and stop moving?

Are they examples of perpetual motion?

I don't see why not. The farthest we can see with our optics shows us light from objects that has travelled Billions of light years. So far so perpetual...



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
Sometimes the description of the path of light sounds like absorbtion-reemittion, like through glass crystal.

Also what causes refraction of light through materials if the photons never touch anything?
Physicsforums has a piece on this commonly misunderstood topic about absorption-re-emission. That's not what happens in glass.

We aren't allowed to re-post quotes from other forums on ATS, so I'll post the link and let anyone who is interested read the explanation:

www.physicsforums.com...

To paraphrase, it has something to do with photons interacting with vibrational modes of the glass lattice called "phonons', rather than absorption/re-emission.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Please, let me clarify this for everyone.

Mass. If we are talking about mass as in what we observe as a single point of a particle wave as it gains inertial mass then it is merely the amount of conserved quantity of energy over time. This energy is directly proportionate to the amount of resistance it encounters in acceleration, or through the Higgs Field.

Everything is discussed here. You are all discussing mass, energy, and space which is essentially time. Space is not nothing. It is merely a measurement of time. We all started from a single point before time began which means the amount of space you see between objects is just proportionate relative to the time that has lapsed between two points of observation.

If you take away space then time is not a factor, there is not space that ever existed between objects. If you take away time then you would see that there is again no space. And thus, because time and space can be twisted and warped and stretched, it is not a constant. Which also means that time does not necessarily exist as we perceive it.

So, now that Ive twisted your mind I will tell you that when things move closer to the speed of light it has more probability of becoming infinite. And in the plane of infinity time does not exist because, like a photon traveling at the speed of light it would not see the beginning of time and the end as anything but a single event. Every photon we observe, if it could think, would think that the beginning of the universe and the end was just the same thing. Therefore space would not exist to the speed of light traveling thing. Remember space and time are both just relative to two separate points. If one point did not exist of the two then time and space would also not exist. Which means that this speed of light traveling thing would collapse into a single point. And it would no longer exist in our realm of understanding which is within the fourth dimension. It would be re-imagined in the sixth dimension, a realm where anything possible does and did happen or it didnt. There is no probable events just binary facts.

Space is not nothing. It is filled with quantum foam which is the pulsing static life force that breaths a realm of probability into the life of particle waves that we observe as atoms. And in return we create a malleable future. One that is changed forcibly to bend to our will. We have been given the power over the universe. The power beyond gods.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 





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


Good stuff, Semi.
What I find interesting is that I think an atom has a neutral center mass, with orbiting electrons that seem more like suns to me. In a living cell, the energy part (the mitochondria) is not in the center. So, why the reverse in the macroverse?



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 





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


Good stuff, Semi.
What I find interesting is that I think an atom has a neutral center mass, with orbiting electrons that seem more like suns to me. In a living cell, the energy part (the mitochondria) is not in the center. So, why the reverse in the macroverse?


Because their origins are not the same. Mitochondria within a living cell are unique in that they have their own DNA (designated mtDNA) that differs from the host's nuclear DNA. The prevailing theory on this is that mitochondria evolved separately until endosymbiosis occurred. So while an atom was probably an atom surrounded by its electron cloud from its onset, mitochondria most likely did not exist in cells from the beginning. Comparing electrons to mitochondria is really comparing apples to oranges. Both are fruit but they are still different kinds of fruit.
edit on 10/6/13 by WhiteAlice because: aaaaaaaphasia.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I was in another thread where a poster brought up that NASA is testing warp drive. Now I have a very basic understanding of this and Sci-fi shows have defiantly had their influence on me but I would honestly like to know more about this. I have looked it up and I admit much of it has gone over my head, I could speculate however I would appreciate some solid knowledge on this. Thanks in advance.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


That is a good question and I want to try to answer it. Firstly, we will always remain sub light speed in regular travel. This is because of relativity, move really fast for long time and you risk leaving everyone behind as they age much faster than you. Because of this we will always remain at 5-10% of light speed.

What a real warp drive will be is bending space time ahead and behind the space ship. Work has already started on a prototype
Read this




Think of space time like a piece of paper, now start pushing the 2 ends together. If you bend the paper enough you'll find 2 bends almost touching. The distance between these 2 will be significantly less. This is what we are trying to do. The problem is energy, we need lots and lots of it. Maybe a high density LENR(cold fusion) or high efficiency and low weight fission reactor(possible with todays technology). We can discuss the physics behind it if you want. We are still decades away from even trying this stuff out and this will need significant investments.
edit on 10-6-2013 by an0nThinker because: fixing link



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by an0nThinker
The problem is energy, we need lots and lots of it.
The NASA scientist who's worked on the idea wrote something about it here (pdf):

ntrs.nasa.gov...

That has a slideshow at the end which is many times better than the slideshow in the youtube video. He doesn't cite lots and lots of energy as the problem in his conclusion (though it may be an issue, as you suggest). He cites the challenge as a need for negative energy density:


While it would appear that the model has nearly all the desirable mathematical characteristics of a true interstellar space drive, the metric has one less appealing characteristic – it violates all three energy conditions (strong, weak, and dominant) because of the need for negative energy density. This does not necessarily preclude the idea as the cosmos is continually experiencing inflation as evidenced by observation, but the salient question is can the idea be engineered to a point that it proves useful for exploration.
Another way this can be expressed is "negative mass". Getting the effective mass of the spacecraft and its contents below zero may be the biggest challenge, but he doesn't think it's impossible which is interesting.
edit on 10-6-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 





The prevailing theory on this is that mitochondria evolved separately until endosymbiosis occurred.


That's interesting. Thank you. If single cells can combine to make complex organisms then I don't see why it would be impossible to think that mitochondria were once separate from cells.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Although they are theoretically possible. I don't know the kind of exotic technology that will be needed to make that possible.
cds.cern.ch...
Either way thanks for the good read. Seems like we are much much further away that I thought.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by an0nThinker
Although they are theoretically possible. I don't know the kind of exotic technology that will be needed to make that possible.
cds.cern.ch...
Either way thanks for the good read. Seems like we are much much further away that I thought.
Note in that paper says "massless":


We give a revised proof of the existence of negative energy density unambiguously for a massless scalar field
Massless negative energy density doesn't appear to be a problem. A warp field around a massless region sounds plausible. It's the spacecraft part that makes it a challenge because of the mass of the spacecraft. If you find a paper showing proof of negative energy density in a region which contains mass, that would be very interesting.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

So you can throw a field around a vacuum and bend space time. However, its completely useless to us except proving that its possible.
There is the possibility that one day we can come up with exotic matter that could do this-

en.wikipedia.org...
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

We really really far away from a real warp drive if we need negative energy densities. Someone who could find another provable way would probably win a nobel for physics..



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErosA433
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 


Light is an electromagnetic wave... those fields are effected by the dielectric properties of matter, these properties depend upon the electron density, and matter density in a material, hence the fact that you can tune the refractive index of glass by dissolving different additives to it


Is light affected by a magnet or electromagnet? Without touching the beam of light, will a magnet placed next to a beam affect the lights path?





new topics
top topics
 
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join