It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

page: 299
61
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 09:02 PM

originally posted by: boomstick88
So speed of light or any speed from that point only relevent to something that we are compering to. Argument still valid, that we very well could be travelling with the speed of light, constantly? But according to the relativity only light/photons can travel with that speed?
Thanks

An observer outside our "Hubble Sphere" (where recessional velocities exceed the speed of light) but within our observable universe would calculate that the Earth is receding from them faster than the speed of light. But we're taught that going faster than light is impossible, right? That refers to traveling through space locally, but an event outside the Hubble sphere is not local so faster than light outside the Hubble Sphere is not a violation of relativity. But yes photons can travel at the speed of light locally, and nothing travels faster than light locally. Non-local events are another matter not subject to the same rules.

posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 09:47 PM
Thats depends on your/our perception of Hubble Sphere. Same, as not all people view colors identically or have same sense of smell. Somebody was also preaching first that Earth is flat or sun rotates around the earth, some people were riduclued and killed for that. Mind can travel faster then speed of light, but thats more philosophical than practical.
Thanks for late conversation.

edit on 7-7-2016 by boomstick88 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 10:08 PM

originally posted by: boomstick88
Thats depends on your/our perception of Hubble Sphere. Same, as not all people view colors identically or have same sense of smell.
I don't know why you say "same" because those aren't the same at all. The Hubble Sphere is a mathematical calculation from the observer's point of view. If you put 100 different observers in the same position, they will all have the same mathematically determined Hubble Sphere, but color perception varies from person to person partly because we know some people are color blind to varying degrees and others have ability to perceive extra colors. There may be other nuances about how the signals from the eyes are interpreted in the brain.

posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 10:19 PM
Double slit, quantum tunneling...
Observer point of view, it is all relevent to calculation and perception. How often we make mistakes??? Gravitational constant is still difined by the formula from 1660.....so nothing changed since then? Absolutely nothing....
Thanks again.

posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 10:35 PM
These are points of confusion for some people, but just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we know nothing. The Hubble Sphere has little to do with the double slit experiment.

Every theory is open to modification based on new data, but what people who make comments like you just did seem to not realize is how much data we already have in support of current theories. Even if a new observation suggests a new theory or modification to existing theory is needed, there's still the issue of all the observations that supported the prior theory.

This is something Einstein had to deal with when he wanted to create a theory of gravitation to replace Newton's theory of gravitation. So in some sense while Einstein was trying to show that Newton's theory was slightly wrong in some extreme situations, he had to deal with the fact that it seemed to be right according to hundreds of years worth of data.

So you can see in that example, we couldn't simply throw out hundreds of years of data just because Einstein had a new idea, he still had to explain that. Because of the almost exponential grown in data and knowledge we have much more than at the time of Einstein. As in Einstein's time, new ideas are still possible, but they have to deal with even more data supporting the previous ideas which can't be completely wrong though like Newton's model they might not be precisely right.

Even though we now know Newton's model doesn't work for particles in the LHC, we still think it works fairly well in explaining planetary motion in spite of having a slightly better model from Einstein, which also explains the precession of Mercury.

Earth is flat..
That's largely a myth. Erastosthenes knew not only the shape of the Earth but also the size, thousands of years ago.

posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 10:46 PM
I'm still convinced that we know nothing, we just pretending that all those money was spent for something that we think we can comprehend. LHC has a lot of data, but you still need the right mind to process it, pillars of science are not complete; however we process that data based on them.
Thats all I have to say. Good night, i need some rest.

posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 12:06 AM
Not knowing everything is a far cry from knowing nothing. We "process" data based on the scientific method. Where that leads is an open field. But yes, there are pillars. Isaac Newton called them something else. He used the term shoulders.

posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 12:17 AM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: boomstick88
Thats depends on your/our perception of Hubble Sphere. Same, as not all people view colors identically or have same sense of smell.
I don't know why you say "same" because those aren't the same at all. The Hubble Sphere is a mathematical calculation from the observer's point of view. If you put 100 different observers in the same position, they will all have the same mathematically determined Hubble Sphere, but color perception varies from person to person partly because we know some people are color blind to varying degrees and others have ability to perceive extra colors. There may be other nuances about how the signals from the eyes are interpreted in the brain.

I think the same thing has been seen for shapes and sizes also in people , one describing a table one way and the other person totally different to what was there , it freaked me out watching it

posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 06:48 AM

Your questions and comments in your most recent post are similar to those I ask, but I cannot really answer them. In my view, science advances in part by just such questions. The subject matter of your questions involves two of my distinct works: 1) my aether model; and 2) my preon model.

In my aether model I was concerned with coming up with why, what and how Maxwell's equations arise. Maxwell himself spent time asking those same questions. My critical breakthrough was to propose a two component solid aether, and to the propose simple force laws for how those two components interact within themselves and with each other. From there, I did a classical analysis using vector calculus to derive Maxwell's equations from my starting hypotheses. One of the things needed to make the math come out correctly was the concept of negative mass. I have not subsequently asked questions about the underpinning of my own hypotheses, much less answered them, but such inquiries and analysis are very welcome.

In my preon model I was concerned with why, what and how elementary particles are constituted, as well as how they interact with each other. In this case, my model is more primitive in that I have defined a new charge (the neutrinic charge) and observed that there must be a new force (the neutrinic force) but I do not have an advanced mathematical treatment for it. Rather, I have a very simplistic arithmetic treatment - masses add to show where certain high energy events will be seen once the preons are freed from binding, and the charges must sum to zero to obtain the observed preonic bound states. Even though it is simplistic, this math does lead to many predictions, many of which have already been observed.

The reason for the lack of further mathematics with regard to preons is due to the difficulty of finding a fully relativistic quantum mechanical treatment for the problem. This is required, since the preon masses are significantly larger than the masses of the resultant states after binding, which in turn means that relativistic mass reduction is not small enough for a perturbation analysis. In the past two years I have developed an exact relativistic quantum mechanical equation that reduces to Schrodinger's equation in the appropriate limit, but I have yet to find an analytical solution to it. I plan to submit the derivation of the equation to Physical Review Letters in the coming weeks, and fully expect rejection. But the reviews I get there can often be used to strengthen my work, and then I plan to submit to Physics Essays.

So that's where things are. My view of advancing science involves questions like what you are asking, followed by modeling of an underlying reality, followed by rigorous mathematics, followed by experimental testing to determine which theories best fit nature. Then the process is repeated. At least that is my view. A prevailing counter-view seems to be one which skips the step of modeling of an underlying reality, but I believe that in the long run - perhaps well after I pass from the scene - that this counter-view will prove to have been folly.

posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 12:51 PM

originally posted by: delbertlarson

My critical breakthrough was to propose a two component solid aether, and to the propose simple force laws for how those two components interact within themselves and with each other. From there, I did a classical analysis using vector calculus to derive Maxwell's equations from my starting hypotheses. One of the things needed to make the math come out correctly was the concept of negative mass.

Is your two component solid aether strictly EM (one component E, one component M), or also gravity (one component EM, one component gravity)?

The concept of what an aether would be, would be not infinitely conceptually distant from classical concepts of when similar material substances combine together to form a largely pervasive super substance that retains its characteristics and property when momentumly disturbed.

When you say two component, do you imply the two components are not made up of any parts?

Water, its made of many parts, but can appear to act or relate to itself as a singular substance; air/wind, metal, jello; you would be suggesting the aether is just another concept as this, albeit of a more fundamental, subtle order, perhaps.

If the gravity medium was not all pervasive, if the substance was not all throughout the galaxy, then it would be possible, or more evident, of the potential for more of a bumpy ride; the Earth would and could potentially take random skips and jumps, experience strong turbulence, if there could be random holes of lacking; but it does not seem that is the case.

Same with the 'light' medium, if the light medium was not all pervasive, then there could be potentially some places, where you can shake around electrons all day and get no light.

Do you think light is omni directional? That when an electron is accelerated, a photon propagates away in a single direction?

Or when an electron is accelerated (it is like a stone dropped in pond.. but 3d/4d pond) and light propagates in multiple directions?

The concept of quantum spins and such, could have to do with the movements of Earth? That there is 'a grain', and that novel effects, non isomorphisms realized, when objects are rotated against that grain?

The difference between a magnet and a non magnet, are the collectively organized real angular momentums of the electrons?

This collection of similar spinning, creates an effect on the 'invisible' (I guess we say, non baryonic material, and well, the result is sometimes visible, as light) light medium/aether/substance/field; (just as rowers in a boat paddling in the same direction at the same time will create one effective result in the water medium, as opposed to rowers in a boat positioned in different places at different angles, rowing different ways different times and speeds), and two magnets, which have these same circumstances of spinning, well, the spinning has a different effect on the medium, just as rowing effects the medium differently in front as it does behind;

And the collective motions of the medium, result, in the materials being forced together, by both the materials movements, and the movements the materials movements cause the medium to move as;

Similar aspect with gravity; different types of substances united in different ways, that react differently amongst themselves when moved by different substances; on different scales,

Perhaps it is similar with preons;

The reason 2 preons together may have less mass then two preons apart; is because of the effect their motion have on the surrounding invisible substance (call it gluon field, or neutrinic or etcs.); perhaps similar to how if there is a magnet on a weighing scale and its mass/weight is being measured, and then you slowly lower another magnet to it, eventually the measurement of the scale might lessen (as the magnet on the scale, will eventually be lifted);

I tried to explain already, that the concept of anti mass, I do not know if that can make sense, at least term wise; It really I think is the concept of medium recoil, the fact substances can be united across distance. That point Z can not be directly touched, but can be moved, by point A being touched and moved, if in some real physical way point A is connected to point Z.

If gravity and EM/light (your potential aether), is a substance/material(/something not nothing) that is connected to itself, and made of separate parts (or not, difficult to comprehend what that would mean, for a something to exist and take up space, and be partless; which is partly, has to do with quantifying mass I guess, I guess it is thought plasma may be that way in some senses; but like, the idea if water was not made of h20, real substance existed as water, but had no separate parts, but just a singular substance, I do not know if anything like that can ever be possible, what it means; because we think everything fundamentally is made of tiny quanta in ways fundamentally different parts; and these parts do not come together, like two pieces of clay, becoming a singular piece, but have relations to surrounding medium, which cause orbital relations, which alter qualitative effects);

Then it might be thought, as with a pond, point X where you will touch a stone to the pond, points 360a degrees surrounding point X, points 360b degrees y distance from a, points 360c degrees y distance from b;

That would you say the ripple of energy is anti mass?

or are you suggesting gravity is the anti mass component; and I think I get why;

You are saying, a trampoline exists, and then a trampoline with a bowling ball on it exhibits anti mass? Because it 'absorbs' masses mass;

Its difficult to say because the galaxy is apparently rotating, or collectively, generally, the stars and planets are orbiting the center of the galaxy in the same direction? So if there is the gravity medium which aids in this direction, and that is a grain that is difficult to go against; if the sun does not travel exactly in a real absolute straight line (I am not talking about abstractions, or space time or relative geodesics, I am talking about actual absolutely, the sun at some point as an object was placed in motion, and object in motion stays in motion, straight line, has no reason to not travel absolute straight line, unless something physical causes it to not absolutely travel in an absolute straight line) then it would be evidence that a gravity substance, forces the Earth to travel a path relative to the suns movements;

If the sun does not travel a straight line, something must have forced the sun to not travel the straight line; we are assuming the gravity substance medium, if not other matter existed of any kind at all, the gravity medium would just settle and be orderly, and not have any reason to have twists and turns and waves and different densities; we are assuming any density difference from point a to point z in the gravity medium is due to the existence of non gravity medium mass, and the existence of that masses motion;

line of thought, assuming refer to the actions of gravity medium as 'anti/negative' mass;

If the ('geometry of space-time'...density and motion of gravity medium substance) is 'strong' enough to make the sun not travel a purely real absolute straight path, (and strong enough to make the Earth not travel a real straight path) then it wouldnt seem right to say that, that which can move the sun is not mass.

posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 02:28 PM

The negative mass you're trying to hunt is likely matter in free fall towards an event horizon of gravity as particles being mass are pulled down at the same rate as the larger mass making them seem to never make contact. Event horizons are not just a black hole event but stand on any larger bodies edge the balance point on which it comes to rest is of course the center mass of the object often called the center of gravity... like being able to balance heavy objects or place them in alignment with that free fall that makes them appear to have zero mass.

So to make I suppose "anti gravity" one would have to find the vector or center mass of the object in question to counter it's weight and then adjust the rate of free fall towards in landing or away for ascending by some sort of trust otherwise there would be nothing but buoyancy of whatever matter/energy when adjusted to that center mass of free fall.

Orbit of course is simply a suspension that varies outside of the masses rotation but falls at exactly the same rate towards the larger event horizon local to it... local particles do this and it varies based on polarities or static accumulation as they fall towards center mass as their mass has enough varying charge or polarities to pull it out of a static orbit of that free fall... like dust having many vectors of charge from pull bring it closer to center mass... but when in unconglomeration, they sort of just float around weightless in suspension when viewed in a sunbeam.

So I think the negative you are searching for isn't really anti anything, it's just the center mass of all particles in a relative free fall falling at the same rate or nearly the same rate as the larger body that make it appear negative in mass. When it's likely charge vectorizations to balance out the center of gravity to negate or manipulates the mass.

None of that breaks the laws of physics of course.

posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 03:11 PM

Well, if his anti/negative mass is referring to EM radiation; it is the attempt to acknowledge, how a 'that which exists', can possibly 'move very quickly...the most quickly'; no matter 'the quantity of quickness' applied to the 'that which exists' in question.

If you take an electron, and wave it up and down 1,000 times; (apex of up= a; apex of down = b; distance between a and b = 1 inch) 1 inch per second; EM radiation travels as fast as any thing can travel, from that point of waving, outward;

If you take an electron and wave it up and down 1,000 times; 1 mm per millisecond; EM radiation travels as fast as anything can travel from that point of waving;

If you did the same thing with instead of 1 electron, 1,000 electrons; EM radiation travels at the exact speed it cannot help but traveling, away from the point of electron waving;

(though yes, there is the difference that lies, in the forces used to wave the electron up and down at different rates and differences; those forces do not translate to the acceleration and velocity of an object; but to the characteristic signatures of disturbance, wave, length, frequency) (but I do not know if EM radiation/photon, is up and down wave, or like compression waves; like (to dig under the surface) if now we think instead of 2dish surface water waves, but in the medium of water, (as we are not on the surface of the gravity or light medium, but amidst it, 3d/4d); if we take a rock while in the middle of a medium of water, and wave the rock back and forth; what types of waves will result; and how would the result potentially be different, if there was just an enclosed cube volume of water (100 ft by 100 ft by 100 ft) and it was in between galaxies, far away from any mass and gravity pull; equally in between 360 degrees every direction equal gravity source canceling out; and you were in the middle of this, with a rock in your hand, waving it back and forth; how different would the resulting water medium motions be compared to doing the same thing on earth; entirely different train of thought, interesting none the less)

So it is a wondering, how can 'something' be so sensitive, that usually when a force is applied to objective object, the ability to move the object is in some way proportionate to the force; but the ability to move EM radiation does not appear proportionate to mass of object doing the movement or the force;

The ability to move EM radiation, fundamentally appears to be intrinsically within the nature of whatever the EM substance is itself and however it is connected to itself to form a medium;

We usually use the measurement of speed and/or velocity to relate to force; it requires Sisyphus to have x amount of mass and consistently use y amount of power/force/energy to move the boulder up the hill, at a particular speed or velocity, distance over time;

But imagine if Sisyphus touched the rock and it shot off up the mountain at the speed of light; might compel one to declare that the rock must have had negative or anti mass.

edit on 8-7-2016 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 03:32 PM

Well particles have a natural affinity or harmonic resonance no matter how much waving them around... all we are doing then is scattering that resonant wave of particle mass around.

Metal detectors distinguish this in saying whats iron, whats, silver, and whats gold, can even say quarter, dime or nickle. Based on the wave forms return of course one can lay the detector down and wave a handful of dirt under it with that object in it as you are saying yet that wont change the metal will it? Only particle decay over a vast amount of time from particle swaps will do that.

Lead is only one atom away from being gold in particle decay.

posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 07:36 PM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: greenreflections

GR is a continuation of Newtonian Mechanic. Newtonian Mechanics does not discuss or meant to include an attribute of space-time metric around massive physical body, like a planet or a star.
True, but the unexplained mystery is why you make such a big deal of the distinction in a discussion of gravitational tidal effects when the math usually comes out so close the difference isn't worth mentioning, as it would for the examples you suggested, which didn't get into things like frame-dragging where you would see the difference.

yup, you can add to gravity attribute 'tidal effect' and 'frame dragging'. Frame dragging means source of gravity is not only present, but spins. It changes nothing in context.

Tidal effect actually best example of odd center of gravity of orbiting object being moved from it's center to the point closest to gravity source.

Difference is:

If you freeze time -- Earth - Moon system will still experience tidal effect. But frame dragging would seize.

edit on 8-7-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-7-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-7-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 02:45 PM
If we process data on faulty/uncalibrated equipment/mind constantly, then down the road we'll be too far off from the truth, maybe too far. Pillars/fundamentals of science need to be reevaluated, because we missed something, something so obvious that was up front of our eyes all the time, but we were so proud,greedy and blind to see it and realize it.
Thanks

posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 04:55 PM

originally posted by: greenreflections

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: greenreflections

GR is a continuation of Newtonian Mechanic. Newtonian Mechanics does not discuss or meant to include an attribute of space-time metric around massive physical body, like a planet or a star.
True, but the unexplained mystery is why you make such a big deal of the distinction in a discussion of gravitational tidal effects when the math usually comes out so close the difference isn't worth mentioning, as it would for the examples you suggested, which didn't get into things like frame-dragging where you would see the difference.

yup, you can add to gravity attribute 'tidal effect' and 'frame dragging'. Frame dragging means source of gravity is not only present, but spins. It changes nothing in context.

Tidal effect actually best example of odd center of gravity of orbiting object being moved from it's center to the point closest to gravity source.

Difference is:

If you freeze time -- Earth - Moon system will still experience tidal effect. But frame dragging would seize.

If you freeze time you are delving into hyper dimensions and encounter infinities that you wont be able to deal with

posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 05:08 PM

Indeed so concept on top of concept on top of concept becomes stereotypical, and well in some science I suppose one could say statistypical since some are statistically likely or probable given the circumstances under which they occur... remove the circumstance then how statistically probable? So stacking boxes in one big stack when theres a whole warehouse can be sort of silly...

Of course, the danger is just throwing things right on out just because of what is already established... of course it all needs to be looked at brick by brick and we have been doing that lately in all the recent breakthroughs in science. Which is a great thing.

I personally love the transitor because it breaks a so called scientific law by putting out more energy than it harnesses... if it didnt we wouldnt still have radio waves from the first transmissions bouncing the stratos sphere and flying out through space... nor any other band than AM from all of that wave out pollution that took much less in it's intial progation.

Wave forms and harmonic resonances are going to be the literal wave of the future in breakthrough and break out technologies. Of course, thats more on the light side, we've been slapping hammers at the heat side of things for a very long time.

posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 05:09 PM

I personally love the transitor because it breaks a so called scientific law by putting out more energy than it harnesses

Where on Earth did you get that idea? A transistor uses a small amount of power to control a larger amount of power. The same thing a vacuum tube does.

edit on 7/9/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 05:20 PM

From my electronic engineering courses in college. There are a few types of them, but it is in it's basic design a wave form semiconductor.

If you really want to enjoy a good read or for personal research they are one of the neatest little electronic devices ever made.

Normally, electonic circuits are used to speed up, slow down, store... the transitor however resonates and the use of that resonant field is to pipe energy flows and the bleed off can be propagated in any number of ways needed or desired.

posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 05:22 PM

the transitor however resonates and the use of that resonant field is to pipe energy flows and the bleed off can be propagated in any number of ways needed or desired
No. A transistor is essentially a switch. It uses a small amount of electrical energy to control a larger amount of electrical energy. It does not produce any electrical energy and it does not defy any physics.

See my edit, above.

edit on 7/9/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

61