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 v1rtu0s0
Indeed, the problem is, how do you spin it without friction?
One could use a magnetic superfluid (thus no friction), or other bose-einstein condensate with magnetic properties, and use a magnetic to spin it. The fluid could be instead of a circular tube.
Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
When a body of matter spins it warps space time outwards,hence why we get an increase in mass in spinning matter,space .
the barrier of the speed of light is a myth
that is merely the speed at which electrons travel at.
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by HeresHowItGoes
the barrier of the speed of light is a myth
How do you know?
that is merely the speed at which electrons travel at.
I think you mean photons. Electrons have rest mass, and nothing that has rest mass can attain the speed of light.
As these threads of yours multiply, it becomes ever more obvious that your take on science is refreshingly original – in fact, it is all your own. Did you think there were no scientifically literate ATS members?
edit on 20/3/11 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)
Electromagnetism is defined as the combinations of alternating electric and magnetic fields created by accelerated charges that propagate out from these charges at the speed of light in the form of waves- electromagnetic waves or radiation
Originally posted by kwakakev
A very interesting proposition. I did like the theory of beating e=mc2 by creating gravity waves to tweak your mass and fall through space. But inducing spin, hmmm... Is this sub atomic matter or atomic matter that we are talking about?
I can see how spin would work in beating c because with a record player the outside goes a lot faster than the inside. Right in the middle they may be no, or only a very small fraction of movement at all. So it all comes down to a technicality of what part of the matter is subject to the law of c. So the next question is how do you induce spin on such a small thing to such high speeds? Frequency of electromagnetic energy maybe, but producing this at a frequency faster than light does not make any sense. But this it because it does not have to accelerate the outside of the partial, just the inside centre of it. Is this getting close or is there something else going on?
Has this got something to do with scalar waves?edit on 20-3-2011 by kwakakev because: added scalar question
photons are a purely a hypothetical particles which has no basis in science
electromagnetic waves are composed of electrons
hence why when you wish to produce an EM wave you apply an electrical current to two oscilating coils
So - why we go from radio to light to spontaneous emission of neutrons with the same force is still something of a hum-dinger in the physics community. It's likely that it's one force triggering different reactions within different structures - but that's merely my guess.
Now, if you want to get into particles that are truly hypothetical (IE - it is still debated whether they actually exist or are merely a mathematical convenience, as their presence is only derived indirectly from math used to explain observed phenomena, never directly observed) - you could look up the gluons believed to be responsible for electromagnetism.
Obviously, it's not as simple as "EM waves are electrons" - as even non-conductive materials are subject to electrostatic phenomena.
no mass?,electromagetic waves HAVE MASS thus cannot be composed of "photons",how can an electromagnetic wave which has mass travel at the speed of light if only massless particles can?.an em wave clearly has masss,is clearly composed of electrons and clearly travels at the speed of light,such a simple argument blows apart yours and mainstream physics yet the synths will never hear it and continue their schiester work.
Actually in physics this is a part which is extremely well understood with lots of confirmed quantitative predictions.
It's because the quantum mechanical interaction of charged particles and electromagnetism is very well understood---because this is the most experimentally practical force to manipulate. And yes, the eventual effects can be quite different but the underlying interaction is electromagnetism all the way down. Pretty remarkable actually that if you add QM + electromagnetism + atoms, you explain of 90% of what's known in physics.
The question is why do your eyes see light and not radio---that's because of the atomic physics of biological molecules.
Sticking within physics, here's my definition: If it gravitates (contributes to the stress-energy tensor which is the source term in the Einstein equation), it's real.
It's as simple as "EM waves are NOT electrons".
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by mbkennel
Actually in physics this is a part which is extremely well understood with lots of confirmed quantitative predictions.
We clearly have different standards of quality.
Physics still can't unravel the conundrum of particle-wave duality. While we grow accustomed to working with probable physics as opposed to determinant physics - we still have no real clue -what- the hell a particle/wave/thingy is. It is even sufficient to say that the particle is merely a mathematical convenience used to express interaction and the wave a mathematical convenience used to express transmission/communicability.
It's because the quantum mechanical interaction of charged particles and electromagnetism is very well understood---because this is the most experimentally practical force to manipulate. And yes, the eventual effects can be quite different but the underlying interaction is electromagnetism all the way down. Pretty remarkable actually that if you add QM + electromagnetism + atoms, you explain of 90% of what's known in physics.
The problem is that quantum-mechanics is not an understood thing. It is a catalog of experimental data and the behavior and existence of particles derived from them. If we understood "quantum mechanics" we'd have a unified field theory and be able to predict the existence of particles and create them using particle accelerators quite reliably.
Sure - different teams speculate on the existence of one particle or another and find it after five or more years of experimenting and analyzing the results - but there's no universal standard that people use to make these predictions off of. Half the time their eventual discovery flies in the face of what was once "known."
For example - I've already been poorly understood by two people in this thread, you included. The source of electromagnetic fields is the movement and/or alignment of electrons.
The carrier is another story entirely. While we call it a photon - all a photon really is is the quantization of localized transmission of energy through empty space. See particle-wave duality as the reason I use that kind of definition for a photon.
The question is why do your eyes see light and not radio---that's because of the atomic physics of biological molecules.
While I posed the question, it wasn't due to my own lack of understanding.
The force (quantized in the concept of a photon) reacts with matter differently depending upon the properties of its source (frequency, intensity/amplitude, etc). It has little to do with the physics of any one particular molecule, but the nature of the interaction of this "photon" and electrons. It would be impossible to "see" radio even with a heavily modified retinal chemistry. Although I have considered the notion of genetically modifying a class of humanoid with conductive filaments inside body hair and connected to specialized neural receptors that act as AM/FM tuners and detectors.
Of course - what I've just described is quantum electrodynamics. Albeit - very simply and from an interrogative position as opposed to a declarative one.
The question always comes back around to what is real versus what adds up on paper.
There's a reason I'm such a stickler about this: presumptions in science are damaging. We have a tendency to try and reduce processes to our own ability to envision them. While this may help in grasping the concepts of observed phenomena, it does not help in terms of causality and exploring the nature of the observed phenomena. Obviously - when something can be demonstrated to behave in two ways that are, normally, mutually exclusive, you are missing an important concept to put it all into perspective.
This is where we get into things like the holographic model and start talking about physical dimensions being manifestations of the exchange of properties along a two dimensional (or some number fewer than the eleven currently recognized) information system. At this point - almost everything is virtual and is merely a cursory product of information exchange. It'd be comparable to a video game - the rasterized environment betrays the information that is actually being processed. Or like how the web-page you are viewing betrays the information that the computer actually reads.
Sticking within physics, here's my definition: If it gravitates (contributes to the stress-energy tensor which is the source term in the Einstein equation), it's real.
How surprisingly practical of you.
But the devil is in the details. At the center of heated debate regarding Gravitation these days is the concept of Emergent Gravity. It's actually a fairly old idea - it is just not very well publicized and previous work was, interestingly, too mathematically complex to see mainstream consideration. Verlinde came along and piggy-backed to demonstrate that Newtonian equations could be derived from quantum mechanics.
Pending more experimental evidence for the holographic principle that these formulas are based off of, and some refinement of the model - it implies that the conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics was merely a figment of our imaginations and a failure to consider the macroscopic implications of quantum mechanics.
The practical implications mean little for what we already know about gravity - apples thrown up will still come down. It would be, for gravity, what quantum electrodynamics did for magnetism. Further - it means relativity no longer has to be unified with quantum mechanics... as it's merely the effects of entropy.
This is where gravity no longer exists as a fundamental force. Mutual attraction between two bodies will still be real - we just will never encounter the graviton, Higgs Boson, or some other tom-foolery.
Or, more likely - we'll prove the holographic principle and the emergent nature of gravity, then find the higgs boson and graviton - just to mess with our minds.
etic fields.