It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
It's an entertainment site - somewhere to waste time.
Yes, largely, but not for me.
I'm looking for the cutting edge in science and technology.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Matter is not always represented by an atom, and vice versa.
Fine.
Think of that as a glaring hole if it makes you feel important.
Matter itself is poorly defined according to THE FREE DICTIONARY in the definition of "mass."
Although mass must be distinguished from matter in physics, because matter is a poorly-defined concept, and although all types of agreed-upon matter exhibit mass, it is also the case that many types of energy which are not matter— such as potential energy, kinetic energy, and trapped electromagnetic radiation (photons)— also exhibit mass. Thus, all matter has the property of mass, but not all mass is associated with identifiable matter.
However, relativity adds the fact that all types of energy have an associated mass, and this mass is added to systems when energy is added, and the associated mass is subtracted from systems when the energy leaves. In such cases, the energy leaving or entering the system carries the added or missing mass with it, since this energy itself has mass. Thus, mass remains conserved when the location of all mass is taken into account.
The diagram I use is the standard accepted diagram of em radiation. I would also have to believe that it is correct. The greater the magnetism the greater the electricity. They cycle about the zero point from minus 1 to plus one. At zero, both e and m are zero. This has been tested and confirmed many times from my understanding. My belief is that stars are recycling units that can go on indefinitely if all stays in balance. Energy is never destroyed. It is only converted. SO what if the new matter coming into a star from space is equal to the amount of energy that the star is losing to the outside system? Why would the energy level of the star ever have to lower? I will cover this more fully in PF 5 when I cover the Sun and the solar cycle. I also believe that light does in fact travel. To say otherwise goes against a lot of known science. I try and use what is accepted fact and work with that. I pay little attention to theories no matter where they originate. But hard facts I must fit to or I throw my idea out or must adjust it to fit. For instance in the Sun we have massive temperature variances. These I take to be a huge clue since this goes against all we know when it comes to temperature transfer. i.e. you don't have hot then cold then hot especially with a change of over 2 million degrees. But you are not alone in the star cycling idea as my buddy who taught college physics also has proposed that kind of an idea. I just do not see it as necessary. It adds something that is not required to explain what we see. So I don't add complexity unless it serves a purpose. But stars definitely can come to an end when things go wrong and the magnetic containment system fails as in the case of a SN. As I see it stars are a steady state system that recycle and therefore our universe may be infinitely old. We just don't like the concept of infinity. Things must have a beginning our minds believe. But why do they? The way I see it no matter what your beliefs in God or no god, if you are honest with yourself you must come to a place where something always was. Even if someone believes in the big bang, there had to be something before the big bang. BTW, Roger Penrose came out with a theory of the rings in the CMB originating from previous big bangs. In other words it went bang bang bang or cycled. This theory was pretty much shot down by his peers very quickly. I do not know all the objections, but I know his theory was not well received. I do see a cycling of the system, but more like the flowing model of the photon I animated in PF3. This also happens to fit with the flow patterns seen in the universe. Here is one link to an article on Penrose's cycling universe idea. scienceblogs.com...
You know the drill. New ideas come out all the time. Sometimes they’re new theories, sometimes they’re old theories with a new twist, but regardless, we need to ask the question: How good is your theory?
The best ideas are beyond validated. They are confirmed over and over, predict new phenomena that gets verified, and don’t have any self-inconsistencies. Well, a couple of weeks ago, a new twist on an old idea was proposed by Roger Penrose.
Penrose is a really bright guy, and — among physicists and mathematicians — is incredibly well-respected. His specialty is in the physics and mathematics of spacetime, including tilings and tessellations
Penrose diagrams — mathematical ways to map infinite spacetimes onto a simple sheet of paper — are named after him. He also has a bit of fame from his work on singularities with Stephen Hawking.
He found — quite surprisingly — that there are regions of space, shaped like concentric rings, where the temperatures are much more uniform than average. In other words, the amplitude of the fluctuations are anomalously low in these concentrically-shaped regions of space. So, you might think to ask yourself, how common are features like this? Is this in conflict with what we think the Universe is supposed to look like, or is this completely reasonable and consistent with what we expect? But Roger Penrose didn’t ask that question.
Instead, this finding was touted — by Penrose — as evidence that inflation is wrong, we live in a cyclic Universe, and these concentric circles are evidence of the Universe that existed before ours. Fortunately, as soon as Penrose pushed this paper, cosmologists were all over it
These features are normal, and completely within the realm of what we expect. So Penrose’s idea — that inflation is wrong and we live in a cyclic Universe — is my favorite kind of invalid theory.
Why is that my favorite? Because we learn from it. That’s one of the ways that science advances: we put out speculative ideas at the limits of our understanding, we test them for validity, and if we find the idea doesn’t hold up to the data, we cast it aside. And we do it, at least, until there’s new evidence that causes us to take it up again. So I hope you not only learned a little bit about a new idea, but that you also learned a lot about what we actually know, and how we know it!
Originally posted by Mary Rose
are shut out of censored mainstream physics. There are lots of self-educated people doing marvelous research. I prefer autonomous, independent, creative scientific endeavor.edit on 02/12/13 by Mary Rose because: Typo
Originally posted by mbkennel
I quote a paragraph from it which is misleading and wrong.
Although mass must be distinguished from matter in physics, because matter is a poorly-defined concept, and although all types of agreed-upon matter exhibit mass, it is also the case that many types of energy which are not matter— such as potential energy, kinetic energy, and trapped electromagnetic radiation (photons)— also exhibit mass. Thus, all matter has the property of mass, but not all mass is associated with identifiable matter.
In actual physics usage today, "matter" typically refers to all particles with non-zero rest mass.
Originally posted by mbkennel
Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Brittanica relate 'mass' to inertia which is better.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
So, if you say matter is all particles with non-zero rest mass, how would you define non-zero rest mass? As related to inertia? Or is that only "mass," and not precisely "non-zero rest mass"?
Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by Mary Rose
Einstein said Michael Faraday's discovery (discovered electromagnetism) was an "audacious mental creation, which we owe chiefly to the fact that Faraday never went to school, and therefore preserved the rare gift of thinking freely.”
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Again in the Comments section on Facebook for PF3 someone has posted a link to a 19 page .pdf "Proposal for Research: Spherical Microwave Confinement."
The comment references circularly polarized light causing a spherical plasma configuration.
reply to post by hisshadow
not only that, but cold fusion