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: raymundoko
a reply to: InachMarbank
Wrong again. Gravity does not cause the acceleration, it's simply the force that causes things to fall.
Downward motion directly towards the source of gravity, in this case he earth, is what causes acceleration. There is no downward motion.
originally posted by: intrptr
originally posted by: dismanrc
a reply to: intrptr
Not so true. The AF has nuclear rockets already on the book, but the no nukes in space treaty killed them. Look up NERVA project. Nuke powered thrust engines that could go to Mars in weeks.
Nuclear engines are too heavy to get to orbit. Besides lets say they build them there, thats many flights Cost and fuel) to orbit carrying parts. Besides leaving a radioactive wake everywhere like the rovers on Mars and the Voyager probes, they don't land on Mars or lift off from Mars or reenter earths atmosphere after coming home. So multi stages, landers, re-entry vehicles are all still necessary. The same way they went before.
Design concepts and practicality are vastly different things. Heres a pic of nuclear powered jet engines that never go off the ground...
De Tredici photo gallery
originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: InachMarbank
Do you believe it is a pull, or a push?
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Association
Written 12 Oct 2015
Gravity is whatever it happens to be that makes things fall to the earth, and things still fall to the earth, so we'll never say that there's no gravity. It's just that it's no longer considered to be a force that applies via Newton's Second Law, but a curvature of spacetime that acts via the geodesic principle, which is the relativistic equivalent of Newton's First Law.
In both cases, we recommend that researchers, scientists, and academics avoid doing business with these publishers and journals. Scholars should avoid sending article submissions to them, serving on their editorial boards, reviewing papers for them, or advertising in them. Also, tenure and promotion committees should give extra scrutiny to articles published in these journals, for many of them include instances of research misconduct.
originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: InachMarbank
His experiment is wrong. He is using Newton's second law which does not apply to gravity unless the constant is included in the equation...instead of F=G it should be F=MG as gravity is a constant. This is basic physics since GR took over and Mark Barton explains it simply:
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Association
Written 12 Oct 2015
Gravity is whatever it happens to be that makes things fall to the earth, and things still fall to the earth, so we'll never say that there's no gravity. It's just that it's no longer considered to be a force that applies via Newton's Second Law, but a curvature of spacetime that acts via the geodesic principle, which is the relativistic equivalent of Newton's First Law.
Beyond that blaring error, he then references a paper which has GLARING mathematical errors in it. That made me research the journal it was published in. Turns out it is a fake Journal with no peer review.
Source
The journal is listed as a PREDATORY journal in that it tries to pass itself off as CSCanada of which it has no affiliation.
In both cases, we recommend that researchers, scientists, and academics avoid doing business with these publishers and journals. Scholars should avoid sending article submissions to them, serving on their editorial boards, reviewing papers for them, or advertising in them. Also, tenure and promotion committees should give extra scrutiny to articles published in these journals, for many of them include instances of research misconduct.
On top of that, the main author: Louis Joseph Rancourt; lists that he only has a BA from University of Ottawa. Their own site does not list a program for physics. They do have a physics department and offer an undergrad program for computational physics and they have an impressive drive for quantum computing. The point being the lead author very likely lacks education in Physics even though he lists himself as a "Experimental Physicist" on researchgate.
Vamivakas and his colleagues use a second laser, with an invisible infrared beam, to produce an electric field that traps the diamond in place.
originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: InachMarbank
It clearly says in that article how they levitated the diamond:
Vamivakas and his colleagues use a second laser, with an invisible infrared beam, to produce an electric field that traps the diamond in place.
I also did not attack the authors credentials, I pointed them out. I clearly attacked the content of the article you posted immediately showing they used the wrong equation to come to their conclusion. That should have been enough for you to admit you were mistaken.
Your original link is a guy named Luis Rancourt. He then uses a "paper" to back up his article. That "paper" is his own work. In that "paper" he references an experiment from another "paper." Guess who wrote that paper? Luis Rancourt. You see the issue here? He hasn't actually completed any experiments that have been peer reviewed. He has hypothesized them and written papers so he can use circular references to back up his own papers. The thread between the papers? They are all published through the same predatory journal trying to pass itself off a a legitimate CSCananda affiliate. There is no peer review. He erroneously ruled out electric fields because he used a crystal, but electric fields do not require a conductive material to do their magic...the paper you linked proved that by the levitation of a diamond...which is a crystal.
Now it's time for you to move on. It's more than obvious you need a thread about physics. This has nothing to do with NASA. I will reply to you no more as you are peddling predatory journals and the fake scientists who publish to them.