It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Lol. Nice one
originally posted by: GetHyped
Please post up interesting facts from Flat Earth conference 2015 next.
It’s junk science and only finds an audience with those who have a limited knowledge of mathematics and physics.
If General Relativity near perfectly describes the visible universe, why is it that we need a magnetic field around the Earth, to even start considering these questions? (You know, because without the field we would all be fresh toast out of the toaster.)
It is possible that the EU theory could be complete BS but, a wise man once said: "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." With that out on the table, please try and explain the Ricci tensor, Lorentz transformations, partial differential equations, and the warping of space-time to a six year old. Now try and explain a simple bar magnet to the same six year old. Tell me, what do you think is more elegant, simplicity or mysticism?
originally posted by: IAmTheRumble "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." ?
originally posted by: intergalactic fire
originally posted by: Vector99
originally posted by: WeAre0ne
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: WeAre0ne
Altering the speed of light doesn't mean it's not constant, it just mean it can be altered.
How does that even begin to make logical sense to you?
If it can be altered, then it is not constant.
That means throughout the Universe the speed of light can be different.
If something alters it. 1000/1000 times the lunar laser reflectors will provide the same exact results. Same as deep space contacts. Light has a constant speed or those things would never work.
Is it possible those same results are tied to the equipment/technology used? or location(earth,galaxy)?even the configuration of the solar system?
Where did I read that GR completely describes the universe? I read that from the uncountable number of people who claim we only need gravity to explain what we see in the cosmos.
By the way, that wise man was Einstein.
You automatically assume we're "average minds", with little to no knowledge of the leading theories.
There's nothing wrong with people searching for a new theory to replace some of our older ideas, as Einstein did with Newton.
originally posted by: Bedlam
The LCD you're looking at is a really elegant stomp to the face of luminiferous aether, which requires EM to be longitudinal, like sound. Since light is polarizable, it cannot be longitudinal, and there is no aether for EM. QED.
The Lorentz transformation relates to Special Relativity. It shows (this is the six-year-olds' version) how a moving object looks to observers moving at different speeds and angles.
works only if the assumption about constant C is true over the whole universe
tell me more.
I do think we need to bring POSSIBLE issues/ better explanations to hand.
Which calculation mate? Care to demonstrate it?
originally posted by: [post=19721551]Vector99 . Deep space contact becomes even more difficult when a slight percent of a percent miscalculation means your transmission will miss by millions of miles.