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.
This sounds a lot like Wal Thornhill's pseudoscientific idea about gravity, which doesn't even qualify as fringe because it easily shown false.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I only referenced the sun having poles, to imagine a sphere having for our desired reference frame a north and south pole of to our perspective; straight up and down.
And then used that, to reference what would be perpendicular, a 90 degree angle to that up and down.
Then, considering that the sun is ultimately traveling through a gravity field, which may have a similar energy density relationship of 'Sphere" in "rectangular? Square? Sphere? Chaos?" 'gravity field space'.
Regardless. I considered the shape of the gravity field, which would be created by the sun traveling through the gravity field. The indentation the sun makes in the gravity field, is what causes bodies to be unable to avoid escaping the force of the indentation made.
I then wondered, what the arc/shape/geometry of the gravity field would be at the 90 degree angle, perpendicular direction, in accordance to 'straight up and down pole' reference frame.
I then wondered how it would work in the dimension of 'the suns surface area on its tail', tail in accordance to the opposite direction of which the sun is traveling through space (around galactic center).
So the inverse square law.
But what the geometric substance of that inverse square law means.
Considering there is gravity medium, substance.
There is sun, substance.
The sun is traveling through gravity medium.
And this is causing the gravity medium to contort in such a way that;
Another mass added at any of the possible distances from the suns tail
will be forced to travel along with the sun.
This means that the gravity field is a substantial field.
That its own mass, plus (or times) the mass the suns motion relativistically gives it.
Is enough continuous momentous mass, that it can force another mass
To follow the arc of the suns wakes curve
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: KrzYma
So you don't know what pressure is, but you've discarded all mainstream physics models and created your own?
As someone once said, if you want to think outside the box, it helps to know where the box is and what's in it.
originally posted by: sanitizedinfo
how would a vortex be created within the earths atmosphere that creates pull?
originally posted by: KrzYma
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: KrzYma
So you don't know what pressure is, but you've discarded all mainstream physics models and created your own?
As someone once said, if you want to think outside the box, it helps to know where the box is and what's in it.
I know what pressure is, I told you, the amount of energy in a system that detains atoms from moving, or I say having equal temperature with surrounding atoms. It is what makes solids, liquids and gases having more volume if hotter.
I don't use any imaginary boundary around this to close the system, I don't need to.
You talk about graphs, functions and mathematics, I describe it how I see it,
originally posted by: joelr
originally posted by: sanitizedinfo
how would a vortex be created within the earths atmosphere that creates pull?
You could put a superdense object like a neutron star in the atmosphere, it's the size of a city with the gravity of a sun.
But it would not stay in the atmosphere it would head towards the center of the Earth and compress the Earth around it down to a thin film of packed neutrons. The rest of the matter would likely convert to different wavelength photons and radiate away in a huge explosion as it was being violently crushed.
To the extent observations like that can prove one hypothesis more correct than another hypothesis, it could be very useful. But then you have an ATS thread where people talk about meeting their twin from a parallel dimension and that's not what the experiment is about. Remember these were predicted before the upgrade too but never observed, but it's possible the upgrade could do the trick.
originally posted by: humanityrising
What are your thoughts on recent predictions of discovering 'mini black holes'? at the LHR?
We already had observations from SN1987A neutrinos showing that experiment was unlikely to be correct, and of course it was incorrect. The results were merely the result of a faulty connector.
With regards to the speed of light, what is the impact of the neutrinos discovered at CERN on the scientific community? Does it put the theory that nothing can travel faster than the s.o.l. in jeopardy? Or is the theory so tried and tested that there are no exceptions and there must be a contemporary explanation for this discovery?
Do I think we have a lot to learn? Yes. Do I think those ideas are pseudoscience? Yes. They tell people what they want to hear and sell a lot of books that way but it's not very scientific.
What are your thoughts on the emerging 'pseudoscientific' and metaphysical theories like Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance, David Wilcock's take on the Zero Point Field, the law of attraction and similar fringe hypotheses? Do you think that we still have so much to learn that there might actually be something to these theories?
J. B. S. Haldane said in 1927 something like not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's probably stranger than we CAN imagine. There seems to be some truth to this so all the more reason we don't need pseudoscience to spice things up; nature can be quite awe-inspiring while looking at her realistically.
I really enjoy pondering the Universe from the point of view that it is all just software, since it behaves as such. If so, that would mean there is coding/programming in the 'structure' and nature of this dimension, and that these codes/programming can be cracked/reverse engineered...which in essence means anything is possible! Just thinking about this stuff really gets my wheels turning.
Many famous scientists have said the same thing.
Whether it all(life) means something, or means nothing at all in the end, I am so utterly in awe at existence, and feel lucky to be a part of whatever this is.
I recently noted that we can discuss fringe science but pseudoscience is going too far and belongs in another thread. Pseudoscience is that which is already considered falsified, where as fringe hasn't been accepted by the mainstream yet but we can't prove it wrong.
Sorry if bringing fringe science to the convo offends anyone...I just had to ask someone who is in the know what they thought about it all. Thanks
When someone tells you what you want to hear, that's kind of the idea is that you will like them and their ideas. It doesn't make them true.
I should mention that I do like Rupert Sheldrake(if not only as a person), but though The Source Field Investigations was an absolutely fascinating read, David Wilcock is a complete nutjob/scam artist.
originally posted by: dragonridr
Your answer is wrong it is the amount of energy in a unit. Has nothing to do with preventing anything from moving. And thermal energy increases movement of atoms causing expansion has nothing to do with pressure. If we want to be acurate the coefficient of thermal expansion depends on the anharmonic forces between the atoms.
Sorry I didn't mean to give the impression those terms were that well defined in general, they aren't. Those are the working definitions I'm using to try to keep this thread on topic, which aren't the only possible definitions:
originally posted by: humanityrising
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I was unaware of the distinction between fringe and pseudo science; I thought up until now they were one and the same.
That's not the only definition, but for this thread, it's the one I'm using.
There are differing definitions of fringe science. Fringe science may be valid science which is not considered mainstream.
So pseudoscience isn't really science, but fringe science is, the way I'm using the terms.
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.
originally posted by: humanityrising
a reply to: dragonridr
Thanks, I didn't realize that the CERN findings were a mistake. Regarding the mini black holes, the articles I read seem to insinuate that the scientists are expecting to find them, as it would support String Theory, but negate a four-dimensional universe model. It would be beyond cool if they are discovered
I'd be interested in understanding why string theory calculations posit a rainbow of dimensions, and, if it turns out there are only four, what alternatives to string theory are most plausible.
originally posted by: KrzYma
originally posted by: dragonridr
Your answer is wrong it is the amount of energy in a unit. Has nothing to do with preventing anything from moving. And thermal energy increases movement of atoms causing expansion has nothing to do with pressure. If we want to be acurate the coefficient of thermal expansion depends on the anharmonic forces between the atoms.
this is your description what's happening and how pressure and temperature becomes two separated but correlated variables.
amount of energy in a unit ? what energy ? kinetic ? potential ?
maybe rather force perpendicular to a surface, the force that prohibits movement.
Temperature is the speed atoms "bounce" of and if too great what makes the bounds break.
Temperature is not the distance atoms move, it's the "collision" interval or the extra acceleration from surrounding atoms, this is where the energy goes to and comes from. Pressure.