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: 56
87
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 08:25 PM

originally posted by: Phage
How. Not why.

so... how does [-1]charge attracts [+1]charge
what's the physics behind it ??
edit on 5-9-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 11:54 PM

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: Phage
How. Not why.

so... how does [-1]charge attracts [+1]charge
what's the physics behind it ??

Fields cause the attraction similar to gravity actually. When two charges interact this causes the electromagnetic field between them to bend. So we end up with a field bending up or down depending on its charge which cause them to interact. When two charges are close enough to each other the two opposite charges will neutralize the field in between the charges resulting in a net "external pressure" pushing them together. Two like charges will instead add more stress to the field in between them resulting in a net "internal pressure" pushing them apart.Closest analogy i can think of is we have our two guy swimming next to the titanic and shes going under. Ones on one side and his buddy is on the other when the titanic sinks its going to lessen the pressure between them pulling them towards each other and unfortunately down. Where a sub coming up between them would push them apart for the same reason a difference in pressure.

This is fundamental to all aspects of the universe it is always trying to seek an equilibrium ultimately zero. But lucky for us it cant so we get interactions as it attempts to do so. As they say may the force be with you im outta here.

edit on 9/6/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 01:36 AM

originally posted by: jackobyte6
I always thought the clocks on satellites were slightly slower because they are moving faster through space than the clocks on earth. Like the theoretical clock moving near the speed of light slows to an almost stop.
You are right in principle about the universal ambient time, but you have to take into account, how man's chronometer works and is not the same as the universe's own chronometer.

posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 10:35 AM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Choice777
I'm not convinced that time slows down when you move faster.
I think is a grave fundamental error in today's phisics... Time doesnt slow down, space moves faster in relation to you.
I think the error is in your not understanding the theory of relativity, because if you and another observer are moving away from each other, you see his clock run slower and he sees your clock run slower, so it's a matter of perspective (called "frame of reference"). So, time doesn't actually slow down on an absolute basis for either observer, when two observers move apart at relativistic velocities, it's a matter or relative motion changing the speeds they see the two clocks tick.

Time dilation

When two observers are in relative uniform motion and uninfluenced by any gravitational mass, the point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock.

You can't really disprove the theory with a thought experiment because there's too much hard data to refute, like the experiment in the NIST lab where they measured the time difference between two clocks when one was moving versus another that was stationary inside the lab. You would have to say what is wrong with their data or experiment, and you probably haven't even looked at their data. Maybe you should start there before concluding the theory is in error, which it may be, but you would need way better arguments to prove it because nothing you said addresses why experiments which you haven't addressed and may not even be aware of are consistent with the theory.

I still think it's wrong...or maybe wrong isn't the right word..i'm sure Einstein figured loads of thing out, but on some he MUST bed wrong.
There is no way, no reason, and no logic in needing infinite energy to reach the speed of light. That would only be true if the universal speed limit is c...but the only prof for this self imposed or better still selfishly auto imposed speed limit on the world by Einstein is the lack of anything that travels faster.
The NIST experiments must be somehow experiencing some corruption in the communication link between the stationary parts of the experiment and the moving clock...there must be something.
Otherwise should we assume that : if you move faster, you will age faster therefore is we were to live all life without any fast means of transport we were to live ever so slightly longer ?
How about if one is isolated from the universe ? The galaxy is apparently moving at 700km/s in the spaceframe of the universe...if we were to detach ourselves and be stationary in regards to the universe, would we live for 10.000 years ? 1.000.000 years ?
What if we could live at 0.1 kelvin, to reduce our atoms frequency and movement ? but magically still have blood circulation ? Again would we live longer just cause we dont move as fast, or the sum of our parts doesnt move as fast ?
The photon has mass, even if it's insanelly small, but only has a tiny bit of energy, why doesn't it require that '' infinite '' energy required by other objects to reach c ?
There is no good reason that c is a limit, just because all the things we have observed so far only travel at c. The same way we cant say there is an upper limit on temperature or pressure or density.
What if we have a spinning disk at 10.000 rpm, on top of another disk at 10k rpm, on top of another, and another ...times 1 million disks...how fast would the edge of the initial disk be moving ? Anyway the Nist experiment must be flawed via some sort of ''reverse spooky action at a distance'' type of lag/frame dragging. In reality the watch doesn't work slower..what if it reaches c ? it becomes completely still ? so why do photons have angular spin momentum ? Or are they magically allowed to break the law ? Or perhaps they are already incredibly slow cause if they were to move at 0.01c their spin momentum would tear apart the fabric of space ?

posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 10:57 AM

originally posted by: Choice777

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Choice777
I'm not convinced that time slows down when you move faster.
I think is a grave fundamental error in today's phisics... Time doesnt slow down, space moves faster in relation to you.
I think the error is in your not understanding the theory of relativity, because if you and another observer are moving away from each other, you see his clock run slower and he sees your clock run slower, so it's a matter of perspective (called "frame of reference"). So, time doesn't actually slow down on an absolute basis for either observer, when two observers move apart at relativistic velocities, it's a matter or relative motion changing the speeds they see the two clocks tick.

Time dilation

When two observers are in relative uniform motion and uninfluenced by any gravitational mass, the point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock.

You can't really disprove the theory with a thought experiment because there's too much hard data to refute, like the experiment in the NIST lab where they measured the time difference between two clocks when one was moving versus another that was stationary inside the lab. You would have to say what is wrong with their data or experiment, and you probably haven't even looked at their data. Maybe you should start there before concluding the theory is in error, which it may be, but you would need way better arguments to prove it because nothing you said addresses why experiments which you haven't addressed and may not even be aware of are consistent with the theory.

.
There is no way, no reason, and no logic in needing infinite energy to reach the speed of light.
Its because of inertia which increases with speed

posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 12:58 PM
Relativity's postulate is that nothing material is faster than light.

So according to relativity, anything that moves as fast as light must be photons.

The action of forces is faster than light, or else light wouldn't be restricted to any specific behavior.

Are the force's effectors a quality of space, like ripples on a pond are qualities of water?

What is space?

posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 10:39 PM

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Relativity's postulate is that nothing material is faster than light.

So according to relativity, anything that moves as fast as light must be photons.

The action of forces is faster than light, or else light wouldn't be restricted to any specific behavior.

Are the force's effectors a quality of space, like ripples on a pond are qualities of water?

What is space?

Well you kind of hit on something here let me explain. The speed of light is sort of a misnomer in that this is a property of space any particle with no mass will travel at this speed. But to answer your question yes the speed of light isnt a property of photons but of space itself. If suddenly every particle in your body became mass less you would have them all streak off at the speed of light. Think of this as the ultimate weapon since one second you would be there the next your gone.Now as for forces themselves they dont have speeds but in particle physics most interactions are photons so you could say under that its the speed of light. In relativity however it a little different but i have to explain something first. In relativity if something travels faster than the speed of light it creates a huge problem. It means that the effect could happen before the cause because time is relative to the observer. This is the exact reason Einstein spent ten years working with gravity. Because for Newton gravity was instantaneous but Einstein realized this means causality is broken if that the case. Meaning events in the universe can occur without a cause what so ever. And if that were true we would just have random events occurring all the time.

His Final solution was of course curving of space time is gravity. And matter is what tells spacetime how to curve the equation is G = 8πT. As of right now this is the only game in town because its the only theory we have that matches reality. Could it turn out to be the wrong answer of course much like Newtons theory still works to model gravity but we know its wrong.

posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 12:57 AM

If suddenly every particle in your body became mass less you would have them all streak off at the speed of light. Think of this as the ultimate weapon since one second you would be there the next your gone.

Not necessarily true, as the ingredients that hold the atom together are still there. It will be a different form of massless matter capable of ftl speeds
edit on 7-9-2014 by Nochzwei because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 03:54 PM
wow..you guys sure have an einstein fetish...cause is first effect second..relativity is just a theory, virtual particles are virtual...photons HAVE mass,
What are you guys on about ? Photons have no mass ? Oh really ? i guess they are some magical container of energy with out shape or form..cool.
Also why doesn't the photon or any particle require infinite energy if their are all traveling at c or 0.9() of c ???
Oh ..it's magic aka relativity .a half baked # that has silenced real progress for decades.
Spooky action at a distance ..how super technical of a name....is proof of faster that light travel.

edit: also non euclidean geometry is crap. It's just used to hide bad math. It's what fumbled einstein and poincare's theories. Also lorentz length contraction borders on insanity. i guess photons are obviously huge when stationary....sure...like the bose einstein condensate has proven ....not...or 4.4 trillion frames per second camera has proved....NEVER.

A long time from now poeple will travell to the stars and think back...lol, how stupid were we to trust all of physics on the theories of two mad men..einstein with his stupid relativity that accept no relativity, and poincare's bent ruler trying to measure bent objects without knowing the bend in his ruler.
edit on 7-9-2014 by Choice777 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 07:36 PM

Photons have no mass ? Oh really ? i guess they are some magical container of energy with out shape or form..cool.

how can they probably have any mass is they are just as virtual as other ghosts in the theory ??
photon is a wave package (:cough), mathematical value for energy carried by electro magnetic waves.
a short cut for equations

Oh ..it's magic aka relativity .a half baked # that has silenced real progress for decades.

... but I agree on that !

einstein with his stupid relativity that accept no relativity, and poincare's bent ruler trying to measure bent objects without knowing the bend in his ruler.

the first one could not see time dilation is just an observed illusion and the second probably get stock in graph funktions

if you like, start here and read through some pages...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
me and Soylent Green Is People had some nice conversation about time dilation there

edit on 7-9-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 12:21 AM

originally posted by: Choice777
wow..you guys sure have an einstein fetish...cause is first effect second..relativity is just a theory, virtual particles are virtual...photons HAVE mass,
What are you guys on about ? Photons have no mass ? Oh really ? i guess they are some magical container of energy with out shape or form..cool.
Also why doesn't the photon or any particle require infinite energy if their are all traveling at c or 0.9() of c ???
Oh ..it's magic aka relativity .a half baked # that has silenced real progress for decades.
Spooky action at a distance ..how super technical of a name....is proof of faster that light travel.

edit: also non euclidean geometry is crap. It's just used to hide bad math. It's what fumbled einstein and poincare's theories. Also lorentz length contraction borders on insanity. i guess photons are obviously huge when stationary....sure...like the bose einstein condensate has proven ....not...or 4.4 trillion frames per second camera has proved....NEVER.

A long time from now poeple will travell to the stars and think back...lol, how stupid were we to trust all of physics on the theories of two mad men..einstein with his stupid relativity that accept no relativity, and poincare's bent ruler trying to measure bent objects without knowing the bend in his ruler.

This rant just shows how little you understand about what you claim to be wrong. First light or photons you ask what is it energy? Yes it is energy nothing more nothing less. Easiest proof in the world we can use light to excite electrons. Light moves at the speed it does precisely because it has no mass. If it had mass it would be particle and act accordingly Also means we would see mater forming everywhere in our universe since photons are everywhere.

Now at least if your going to argue against relativity my first suggestion as at least understand it and stop trying to misquote Einstein. Quantum entanglement is the proper name not spooky action at a distance.This was an explanation of entanglement by Einstein. Einstein like you he didnt like the observation of quantum entanglement (proved through thousands of experiments) and tried to disprove it just like you are problem was he couldnt argue with facts and finally admitted it correct. So your blaming him for something you think he did and wrong kind of funny no???

posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 12:56 AM

That's an ahistorical slur against Einstein. Definitive experimental confirmation of quantum entanglement and ruling out some kinds of hidden variable modifications was not available until after Einstein's death.

Einstein always respected experimental results.

Moreover, the fundamental intellectual criticism of the difficulties of the "Copenhagen interpretation", a subject started by Einstein's criticism, has flourished and is now a significant subject. "Decoherence" is now often preferred. Einstein's instincts that there was something wrong was correct.
edit on 8-9-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 03:55 AM
photon is a wave package (:cough), mathematical value for energy carried by electro magnetic waves.
-KrzYma

math doesn't exist in reality....so we're left with energy carried by em waves..so like a ripple of energy in a sea of magnetic waves....then ''carried by electro magnetic waves'' means those waves have some substrate to them...it's a double event here..first there exists a medium, then a wave inside that medium...and this combination of 2 elements still manages to move at c without requiring infinite energy.
also since e=mc2, then the energy of a photon = the mass of it X c2, so since it has energy, obvious speed, then it has mass. if mass was zero, then zero X c2 = zero energy.

dragondir.
if quantuum entanglement is real, then information is transmitted faster than c, therefore there must be something capable of faster than c travel. a information carrier wave like thingy that's sort of similar maybe to em waves or maybe it's the elusive dark energy or dark matter or a combo of the two.
you cant have quantuum entanglement over a whole galaxy in 1 second and still say nothing is faster than light.
whatever the physics, something somehow is bypassing the normal line of sight space.

posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 04:28 AM

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

The Milky Way Galaxy and some far off galaxy on the other side of the known universe are is moving in some direction away from each other at fantastic speeds, so (relative to each other), each galaxy is experiencing the rate of time passing differently. Whose time frame is correct -- ours or theirs? Both of our time frames are correct, because there is no set "center stationary reference point" of the universe.

Everything in the entire universe moves relative to everything else. We could claim we are sitting still and they are moving away from us, and they could claim THEY are sitting still and we are moving away from them. We would both be right.

Because of time dilation, light will always moving at the same constant speed to two people measuring it, even if those people are moving at different speeds themselves relative to each other.

originally posted by: dragonridr

Ok looks like you are confused about relativity. Light always travels in a straight path unless a medium scatters it or bends it. As faras the mirror part you cant travel the speed of light and have light stand still it doesnt work that way.To any observer in any frame of reference light will always appear to travel at the same speed. So no you wouldnt be invisible you would see the light bounce off the mirror and return to you the speed your going is totally irrelevant. Any person moving at a constant velocity will observe the same laws of physics that a stationary person would observe. Meaning if your moving at the speed of light you will still see light moving at the speed of light this occurs through whats called time dilatation. Distance is measured by velocity times the time it takes the faster you move the slower time becomes. Or simply put the faster you move the slower you age i always liked looking at it this way i have a poster in my lab says avoid death keep moving with the equation under it.

See...this is what i have a problem with..it's the essence of the two quotes above.
-there's no universal frame of reference
BUT at the same time, we humans think that
-we can use imaginary frames of reference whenever it suits us in our misguided relativity/special relativity infused physics.

If anyone cares to follow us back to the REAL WORLD, i'll have them know that there's IS and there ONLY IS 1, aka one, frame of reference....the universe, the very space we live in.
You are moving together with a miror at c, then the photons from you are hitting the mirror and reflecting back to your eyes at c, while both you and the mirror are at c , the photons between you are moving at c +c IF you and the mirror are moving away perpendicular from a static observer.
This universe must be contained in something. something made it possible for quarks to exist and to group the way they do, and then all the other particles and force carriers to behave the way they do. it's an engineered universe. it must have a universal frame to contain it.
there's no such thing as infinite energy required to move an atom at c., infinite means infinite, something phisically imposible to exist because it would fill everything including the ''thing'' that contains this universe.

posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:33 AM

If anyone cares to follow us back to the REAL WORLD, i'll have them know that there's IS and there ONLY IS 1, aka one, frame of reference....the universe, the very space we live in.

I agree partially on that, why?
Because the "information" travels at C , any change in the "local frame of reference" that takes place, is bound to that frame only. This frame's radius grows with C but still, it takes 4.37 Years to "synchronize" with Alpha Centauri.
And vice versa.

You are moving together with a miror at c, then the photons from you are hitting the mirror and reflecting back to your eyes at c, while both you and the mirror are at c , the photons between you are moving at c +c IF you and the mirror are moving away perpendicular from a static observer.

NO ! precisely not !!
People tell us no mass can move at C because mass increases... bla bla.. you know that story
I have different opinion on that.
You can not accelerate mass to C in local frame because the "information" about the driving force travels at C ( E filed )
so it doesn't matter how big the potential difference is, closer and closer to C less and less "information" is exchanged.
This is contained and linked to the field strength in this frame, i. e. how much mass is in the taken reference frame.

Mass, i.e. field density affects the time/speed of light/propagation speed of EM, if observed from the "outside"/different frame of reference.
therefore Black Hole is not a collapsed mass/singularity, it's a frame in which time seems to stand still if observed from the outside.

NOW, if you move, you always need to state relative to what you are moving !
(I know you've said relative to an observer, but others are also reading this so...)
In other words... if you and your mirror is alone in the Universe, and nothing else exist, you are not moving.
All that can move is you relative to the mirror.

...put a star into this Universe, so there is you, the mirror and the Star.
In this case you can say that you and the mirror move relative to this star, and as the distance gets larger or your speed up away from the star, the field strength gets smaller - your local time differs from that of the star and you see red shift in EM.
If the distance between you and the star decreases, the field strength gets larger, your time "slower" and you see blue shift in EM

..you could say, you move relative to the Universe as whole, but as I said before, you are physically dependent on the field strength of the objects in the Universe and the time/propagation speed in EM, time is set for you !
Universe as whole holds in this even the time it takes for the "information" exchange I've explained before because it is already there.
There is a net field strength of the Universe, and it changes slightly all the time because the masses in the Universe move relative to another ( vacuum fluctuations )

so... you and the mirror can not move at C at all, you need to decouple from the field to move faster than this field allows you.

but lets see what happens if your speed in the Universe is less than the speed of propagation determined by the Universe

I'm not sure what speed this particle in this video moves, but it's definitely smaller then the propagation speed.

the brightness in this video is the density of the field and I also see it as time speed, brighter means time goes slower, darker - time goes faster
(seeing from our point of view)

Now imagine you with the mirror in front of you moving at 1/2 C relative to Universe... in front of you time is compressed, behind you, decompressed. (and also for the EM wave travelling)
Light going from you to the mirror takes longer (observed from the outside) and back to your eyes faster (observing from outside), so you will measure the same speed of light as if you were not moving at all.

there is no way to get rid of this effect in linear motion.

edit on 8-9-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:37 AM

math doesn't exist in reality....so we're left with energy carried by em waves..so like a ripple of energy in a sea of magnetic waves....then ''carried by electro magnetic waves'' means those waves have some substrate to them...it's a double event here..first there exists a medium, then a wave inside that medium...and this combination of 2 elements still manages to move at c without requiring infinite energy.

EM waves do not move like particles!!! they propagate
...means the potential difference changes over time and it looks like something arrives, but physically nothing moves at C or changes position (except the radiating charge of course). What changes over time is the direction in potential difference. This change in direction affect electrons trajectory and kicks it out of atoms, but nothing hits the electron physically!
edit on 8-9-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 08:28 AM

Now have a look at hadron collider or any particle collider that smashes charged particles into each other.
lets talk about 2 particles, although there are millions/billions used in experiments, otherwise no collision would be possible at all.

so one moves at 99.99% of C and the other moves towards the first one at 99.99% of C.
They relative speed is almost 2C, right ?
Yes.. but the "information" is not exchanged till they very very close to each other.
Time compress in front of they movement and the "information exchange " slows down so one does not see the other and vice versa.

The moment they collide, field strength doubles almost instantly (from our point of view), they repel, change trajectory and what's left behind is turbulence of the field, causing the detectors to "see" something that is not there at all, misinterpreted as particles of various masses and other "ghosts" in the field that dissipate almost instantly (in our point of view) because those are just turbulences and not real stuff !

posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 10:52 AM

Please elaborate firstly to the structure of said detectors and secondly what they in fact 'see', what they think they should see but why its not what is happening.

posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 12:01 PM

originally posted by: Choice777
photon is a wave package (:cough), mathematical value for energy carried by electro magnetic waves.
-KrzYma

math doesn't exist in reality....so we're left with energy carried by em waves..so like a ripple of energy in a sea of magnetic waves....then ''carried by electro magnetic waves'' means those waves have some substrate to them...it's a double event here..first there exists a medium, then a wave inside that medium...and this combination of 2 elements still manages to move at c without requiring infinite energy.

also since e=mc2, then the energy of a photon = the mass of it X c2, so since it has energy, obvious speed, then it has mass. if mass was zero, then zero X c2 = zero energy.

No. E=mc^2 corresponds to the energy equivalence of rest mass. Since photons have no mass, it means their rest mass energy equivalence is zero, which is correct. What Einstein actually derived was E^2 = m^2 c^4 + c^2 p^2, and hence for photons E = cp, proportional to their momentum. (And yes in maxwellian electrodynamics fields carry momentum).

This was completely verified by the experimental results from Compton scattering, earning Compton and Einstein Nobel Prize.
edit on 8-9-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-9-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 05:52 PM

Since photons have no mass, it means their rest mass energy equivalence is zero, which is correct.

...ever seen a photon at rest ???

One of the consequences of Einstein's special theory of relativity (1905) is that the mass of an object increases with its velocity relative to the observer. When an object is at rest (relative to the observer), it has the usual (inertial = tendency to resist an applied force) mass that we are all familiar with. This is called the 'rest mass' of the object.

new topics

top topics

87