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 ImaFungi
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. (Nikola Tesla)
Originally posted by mbkennel
Originally posted by ImaFungi
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. (Nikola Tesla)
Tesla was wrong. He didn't understand quantum mechanics one bit.
QM is difficult and not intuitive, but in the end scientists did connect the mathematics to experiment. It is not easy, but it can be done. Like it or not, quantum mechanics predicts the periodic table (though multi-body effects are extremely hard to compute). The multiplicity of solutions the PDEs for the Schroedinger equation in a central potential predicts the degeneracy and splitting of optical aborption/emission lines under electric and magnetic field.
Quantum mechanics---and in particular Albert Einstein---predicted the laser.
Originally posted by BornOfSin
My theory?
• Gravity is the universal X plane.
• Time is a result of gravities resistant effect on energy through space.
• Dimension and density of space is the resulting ‘field of motion’ of energy passing through gravity.
• ‘Gravitational force’ is energy passing through a gravitational ‘warping’ in space density
• Motion is caused by energy through time
I have a complete theory of cosmology I am putting together that I need assistance with.
Also the colliders are inherently dangerous as they represent a massive release of concentrated energy within a space density elementary particles should not exist in.
I believe this translates momentary weakening in our gravitational field.
Originally posted by BornOfSin
reply to post by buddhasystem
1) As it appears in the dictionary;
Universal: Of or relating to the universe or cosmos; cosmic.
'X plane' symbolising two intersecting planes in 3 dimensional space.
2) What makes you think I'm wrong?
Time is a result of gravities resistant effect on energy through space.
Please explain how this is less plausible than existing non-explanations of this particular continuum.
3) Pictures might serve you better?.
Time is a field.
'Motion' (oscillation) is the product of energy
Which in turn creates and sustains dimension and density of space through oscillating dispersal of motion.
I am certified as having spacial perception and nonlinear dynamics intelligence
Originally posted by BornOfSin
• All motion in space is oscillation.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
Yea but I think what he was saying is also relevant to my attempted inquiry regarding the physical existence of fields. I am only concerned with how reality actually is. And I am not hating on theories and models that are abstractions, approximations, probabilities, and the best we can possibly do and know. I am just saying, if the models and theories are not exactly as reality is, then it should be further worked on developing an understanding of how exactly reality is.
I think this video gives me some idea:
Originally posted by mbkennel
What do you mean by this "how exactly reality is?"
Think carefully. How would you know when you have answered the question satisfactorily?
Originally posted by mbkennel
Originally posted by ImaFungi
Yea but I think what he was saying is also relevant to my attempted inquiry regarding the physical existence of fields. I am only concerned with how reality actually is. And I am not hating on theories and models that are abstractions, approximations, probabilities, and the best we can possibly do and know. I am just saying, if the models and theories are not exactly as reality is, then it should be further worked on developing an understanding of how exactly reality is.
You will need to get much better at philosophy then, there's a few thousand years of studying to do.
What do you mean by this "how exactly reality is?"
Think carefully. How would you know when you have answered the question satisfactorily? If you do so, will other people agree with you? What do you do if they don't? Burn them? ("The true nature of reality is whatever the Inquisition says it is")
Scientists have been successful by adapting an operational version which does not depend on figuring out the philosophical issue first.
edit on 28-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)edit on 28-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)edit on 28-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Sparky63
I don't know what's harder; describing what an EM field is or getting a physicist to say, "I don't know".
Seriously though, I've learned a lot just from lurking on this thread, I truly appreciate the well thought out explanations that many have given to try to explain what to most of us is unexplainable. It seems that to truly understand these concepts requires a dedication to grasping the complex math involved.
Originally posted by amfis
All the things that was being shown to us, being given at schools, wether it is false or some piece of truth - it's primary purpose is to focus the individual to him self.
I was confused by that too.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by BornOfSin
Gamma ray flashes have nothing to do with colliders. Just thought I'd point it out.
You talked talked about colliders, HAARP, gamma ray flashes, lightning as a possible terrestrial source which you apparently don't believe and then refer to the galactic center, but I think the detector can tell if the source is terrestrial or extraterrestrial, and if it's terrestrial (as your link referred to), then obviously it's not coming from the galactic center. Even if there was a gamma ray source on Earth's surface, the atmosphere isn't particularly transparent to gamma rays, which really only leaves something like high altitude lightning as a terrestrial source of what is detected by the RHESSI satellite, since high altitude lightning is above most of the atmosphere and will therefore not be blocked by the atmosphere.
Originally posted by BornOfSin
I should point out for the sake of argument that the gamma ray coming from the centre of our galaxy is my theory .. its not proven.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by BornOfSin
Gamma ray flashes have nothing to do with colliders. Just thought I'd point it out.
EINSTEIN: "E=MC2" buddhasystem (trying to make Einstein seem unintelligent): "What type of Energy exactly??? there is many types.