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.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 383
81
<< 380  381  382   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks.



Are you saying Malus' Law and/or the online calculator for it are wrong?


I am learning to assume nothing. And, drop my bias like a hot thing.

I say learn. I fail it sometimes.

I have given you a scale that is within half of a %.

I have noticed the name drop of George Box.

Obviously i had to find out more.

Admittedly. I have only watched 1 vid in 2 parts. Quality and the art of discovery.

I cannot disagree with a single thing he says.

He's fair dinkum.

I will make time to watch more.

Nice drop.





posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



So why don't you wait until it's done before burdening us with your statements which have no math or predictive power to back them up?


" burdening us with your statements" ?? this is just your perception of what I'm saying...

about the math... well.. it is already done...
check the math for space-time...
the thing is.. it is correct, just the interpretation what it is causing it is WRONG !
You still don't understand, I'm not questioning the experiments, but the interpretation of the outcome MS is telling us, this is why I say main science is BS.

OK, I know I'm rude in explaining, I take things for grounded... and I'm not a teacher...
...also... my days are counted, there is not much left.... ... so I was thinking, I do you another lesson..

and as I'm not aspire a Nobel prize or something, and I hope someone will do understand what I type here, I will explain to you how gravity works.

back to Einstein...
time is not a thing and it can not "combine" with space to be some other thing.. "space-time"
gravity..., it is not a "bend" in anything.
Einstein had it right "as a though" but he didn't understood that time is not a physical thing
time is a name for things that happen in some periodic counting events.
you count, and then you say how many counts it took for this or other event to happen... that's it
...I have already explained it here, so search for it

listen... gravity

I told you more than once, that +1 and -1 counts as 0 for charge, but it is 2 for the field density
I also told that the field density is related to the sped of EM propagation.
I have explained the so called "gravitational lensing" some hundred pages back here...
but you sill ignore this..


OK, so how does gravity work...

let say there is some big number of charged particles on the right. (big mass)
and some other charges on the left, but much less. (little mass)
so.. the gradient in the field goes from right decreasing to left.. get the picture ?

because EM propagates slower is higher E density than lower E density, and the ( let me use QM now so you can comprehend ) "photon distribution probability" has to be more on the right than the left... the "photons" are more on the right.
.. you still following ?
so the attraction between the charged particles goes more right than left, because they move "slower" in higher density, so they attract each other "longer" on the right than on the left...

do have the picture now ? ...all shifted to the right
this is gravity


and once again... light is not a thing that travels from one point is space to another..
light propagates, it does not move from one point in space to another,
"photon" is just a name for a EM wave that propagates...


why the charged particles attract or repeal... I'll tell you if you understand this





BTW: you said gravity can not be electric because electric fields seems not to influence the "gravitational attraction"..
NO.. the slope in the E field is not gravity, the charge amount is responsible for gravity, even if it's net charge is 0... it's the gradient in the field..
+1 and -1 is 2



edit on 18-1-2019 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 06:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
" burdening us with your statements" ?? this is just your perception of what I'm saying...
It's a fact you provide no math or quantitative analysis to back up what you say, and then you contradict yourself by saying the math is already done and is correct.


about the math... well.. it is already done...
check the math for space-time...
the thing is.. it is correct, just the interpretation what it is causing it is WRONG !




listen... gravity

I told you more than once, that +1 and -1 counts as 0 for charge, but it is 2 for the field density
I also told that the field density is related to the sped of EM propagation.
I have explained the so called "gravitational lensing" some hundred pages back here...
but you sill ignore this..


OK, so how does gravity work...

let say there is some big number of charged particles on the right. (big mass)
and some other charges on the left, but much less. (little mass)
so.. the gradient in the field goes from right decreasing to left.. get the picture ?

because EM propagates slower is higher E density than lower E density, and the ( let me use QM now so you can comprehend ) "photon distribution probability" has to be more on the right than the left... the "photons" are more on the right.
.. you still following ?
so the attraction between the charged particles goes more right than left, because they move "slower" in higher density, so they attract each other "longer" on the right than on the left...

do have the picture now ? ...all shifted to the right
this is gravity
The picture I have is one of you contradicting yourself. You say the math is done?

The math for gravity does not show it is a function of electric charge yet you make some difficult to understand word salad about gravity and charges but show no math or experimental evidence supporting anything you say, which is why it's burdensome. At least some people who propose non-mainstream ideas have some math to describe what they mean, but you never have any math, nor does electric universe. That reminds me, I think some EU proponents have advanced something similar about gravity having something to do with electric charge, also without any quantitative analysis, which makes it completely useless in addition to contradicting your statement that the math is already done.

By the way the mainstream model also says neutrinos are involved in gravitational interactions, and they have no charge that we know of. They comprise some fraction of "dark matter", perhaps 3-5% according to one study.

Study suggests the elusive neutrino could make up a significant part of dark matter


Our results suggest that neutrinos make up between 3% and 5% of the total dark matter mass. This is sufficient to consistently reproduce a wide variety of observations – including the new gravitational lensing measurements.
I have no idea how this research is supposed to fit into your gravity from charges explanation when neutrinos don't have any charge but appear to have gravitational effects. Their mass is very small, but there are a lot of them.



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

originally posted by: mbkennel
People don't use 'relativistic mass' any more. It was a mistake, even Einstein tried to stamp it out. The right idea is to modify Newton's laws appropriately, so that the relationship between momentum and velocity is not as simple.
I'm replying to this old post on relativistic mass, a topic that has come up several times in this thread, because I found an interesting video from Don Lincoln at Fermilab which talks about this and more or less agrees with what mbkennel says.

However, Dr. Lincoln admits that some physicists debate the merits of the relativistic mass concept so maybe it's not 100% completely dead, but he apparently doesn't take the debate too seriously and insists that most physicists who actually work with relativistic concepts don't support the idea of relativistic mass. Yet it's hard to get rid of, because here's another post from mbkennel recommending what I agree is an excellent resource, which unfortunately teaches the "wrong" concept of "relativistic mass":


originally posted by: mbkennel
Have you read the Feynman Lectures on Physics yet?
I imagine the Feynman lectures will be around for a while and I don't see the relativistic mass being edited out completely, but maybe someday they might at least add a note about the concept being phased out. I also see the concept in other places, like this relativity calculator:

Relativity calculator

This was formulated by the German-American physicist and mathematician Albert Einstein (1879-1955) in his Special Theory of Relativity. Basically, an object in motion undergoes 3 relativistic changes:
1) An increase in mass
2) A contraction in the direction of travel (Lorentz Transformation) and
3) A "slowing down" of time. (Time Dilation)
As already mentioned Einstein objected to the idea that mass increases for an object in motion, contrary to what this relativity calculator says, but the misconception is understandable considering that some textbooks and physicists still hang on the the idea. #1 should be an increase in momentum and energy, instead of an increase in mass.

Here is Dr Lincoln explaining why he and his colleagues involved in relativity work "really dislike the concept of relativistic mass":

Is relativistic mass real?



posted on Jan, 22 2019 @ 08:30 AM
link   
If Jesus played chess, would His ELO rating be infinite?

Not a trolling question.

I'm actually curious on this.




top topics
 
81
<< 380  381  382   >>

log in

join