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.

 

The Faster Than Light Issue

page: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:39 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Please review my thread Wanna Hear Another Crazy Take on Gravity? when considering this reply:

Mass is an illusion, or rather mass is only significant when one assumes matter to be fundamentally different from free space. I believe high energy density causes space to fold back on itself, causing hyper-dimensional structures in space which we refer to as "matter." The most fundamental form is the 4d torus, which expresses itself in our 3d experience as a sphere, or point particle, which retains its respective quantum properties, consistent with current theory. The electron is a fine example, as well as the positron. They are chiral opposites, which explains why they mutually annihilate when brought into close physical proximity. The result of that annihilation is nothing less than the expansion of space itself as those bound-up structures relax into "flat" spacetime. This is the mechanism by which inertia and momentum operates, this is how Zeno's paradox is resolved, this is how superluminal travel is possible(I think, on that last one I think so, I haven't totally worked it out yet.)

Einstein wanted to call it the "invariance principle." A better title, in my mind. Somehow "relativity" stuck though.

Share with me your thoughts, please. I'm f'ing tired of formalizing this thing on my own.




posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

Energy distorts spacetime in the same manner as mass. See kugelblitz.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yep. As above, so below, as they say. So what do you suppose happens when friction goes away? Air resistance? Superconductivity becomes the rule, rather than the exception? These are the rules of the infinitesimal. See Bose-Einstein Condensate At low enough temperatures the rules of the smaller become the rules of the larger.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

It doesn't even have to be that complex in order to explain mass.

If (that is the supposition I am working on) energy were to somehow become trapped in an area of space, that energy would act as matter. Think of it as a standing wave. Energy of a specific magnitude is reflected by space itself, setting up a standing wave that presents itself as a particle. During the reflective process, there is an interaction between the electric and magnetic fields that make up energy, leading to a force surrounding the particle. This force does not affect mass; it affects the space around the mass, pulling it inward to the mass. Gravity works the same way: two objects do not attract each other. They attract the space between them, which the matter in those objects exists in. The result is that we see the two objects attracting each other.

Think of it this way: if two people are holding hands and pulling on each other, they will experience a force pulling them together. Now have each person holding one end of a rubber band and pulling; they are still pulling themselves together. Now make that runner band invisible. We would not be able to see what this mysterious force is that is pulling the two people together and would assume it is just "the way things are." That's what we do with gravity. We cannot see space (we can't even detect space, actually), but we see two masses pulling themselves together. We say it's just "gravity," when in essence it is the masses both pulling on a medium we cannot detect.

The force created in the interaction between a current and a magnetic field also produces a force. I believe this force is the same force as gravity, with the exception that gravity is created by the reflections of an energy wave in the standing wave configuration we call mass.

Grossly simplified, but that's where I am heading.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Of course it does. Matter is trapped energy exhibiting itself as a standing wave.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Archivalist
I subscribe to The Optimum Theory.

E=c^3 for absolute energy value available across space time.

All of what exists within space time, as matter, is contained within that cubed C value.

When you extract down to the "m" you are deconstructing part of the cubed C, for the mass value.

There is a conversion between light and matter, that really needs to be understood, to nail this down.


If you believe that everything in the physical universe is composed of energy (of various types and frequencies) and pursue a better understanding of what that is and how it works functionally, then solving the conversion question becomes child's play.

As do many other "great questions" posed throughout history. Even those posed by many religions. At the end of the day, everything collapses down to the same thing - it's just the journey during the collapse that differs.

In my humble opinion, of course.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Nothing is stationary. The notion of a "standing wave" is relative. Energy is a vector. Energy doesn't exist without directionality. Instances in which energy is "stationary" are oscillatory, such as in the case of thermal energy.

The big mystery is "how is Newton right" and also "Einstein is right"? The answer, I think, can be found i my thread. Matter is just bound up space, bound up because of an energy density sufficient to bind said space into little structures we call "particles." They go on to combine into more complex structures like atoms and molecules.

Neither Newton, nor Einstein offered a mechanism for the phenomenon we call inertia, which is defined as a force which resists a change in velocity. I'm offering a mechanism which does, while satisfying the assertions of both. From this I can reconstruct everything they asserted thereafter.

Would you like to know the craziest part? I'm doing it anonymously on a conspiracy forum. So, hate to say it, take that into your calculus. But I'm right. I know it.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

And yet standing waves exist.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Zelun




The big mystery is "how is Newton right" and also "Einstein is right"? The answer, I think, can be found i my thread.


You've solved the GUT - the Grand Unified Theory - question?!

Really?

Can you please point me to your thread?

I may steal your idea and become famous if your idea is indeed workable.

Watch this space...



edit on 10/10/2019 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: Zelun




The big mystery is "how is Newton right" and also "Einstein is right"? The answer, I think, can be found i my thread.


You've solved the GUT - the Grand Unified Theory - question?!

Really?

Can you please point me to your thread?

I may steal your idea and become famous if your idea is indeed workable.

Watch this space...




Isnt the GUT about how to merge quantum mechanics with relativity?
I dont think Newton has anything to do with it.


edit on 10-10-2019 by tjocksteffe because: grammar

edit on 10-10-2019 by tjocksteffe because: spelling



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: tjocksteffe

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: Zelun




The big mystery is "how is Newton right" and also "Einstein is right"? The answer, I think, can be found i my thread.


You've solved the GUT - the Grand Unified Theory - question?!

Really?

Can you please point me to your thread?

I may steal your idea and become famous if your idea is indeed workable.

Watch this space...




Isnt the GUT about how to merge quantum mechanics with relativity?
I dont think Newton has anything to do with it.



Sort of.

A real Grand Unified Theory (GUT) should allow for Newtonian physics, relativity and quantum mechanics.

If not, than by definition it is not unified.

Not an easy nut to crack...but I'm hopeful we will some day.


edit on 10/10/2019 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I've always entertained the theory of "lazy"

or

Path of least rsistance.

I postulate that if some space craft could stop moving

ie stasis to the universe, not relative to near space.

that you would move at the spead of the univese itself.

not certain how fast that could be.

but think about this, we spin around the sun the sun spins around the galactic center

the galaxy spins around the universe.

So maybe we don't need to speed up, as much as we need to stop.

Just a perspective thing...



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

You know, I'm actually okay with that. You'd know and I'd know which would be enough for me, and if it means I can take a vacation on the Moon faster then it'd be worth it.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

They do. Helmholtz was particularly interested in the resonance of sound waves in a cavity, being a standing wave. The resonance of these little space cavities we call particles is responsible for the quantized nature of absorption and emission of light. At least that's what I'm proposing.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte
Your source is a moonbat.
You can read here several FAR more realistic approaches to the problem of what spacetime is "made of."

Assuming one can understand the points made.

Harte


Perhaps this reality is the physical construct of a number of "building materials" we call dimensions. Spacetime itself appears to be multidimensional. Layers of dimensions together give the illusion of a physical universe. Take away some of those layers and your reality will cease to appear physical.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct




Spacetime itself appears to be multidimensional.


Multi. More than one.

Yes. Three spatial dimensions. X, Y, and Z. Length, width, and height. Some consider time to be a "dimension" so if you're one of those, four. Boring, I know, but those four seem to work perfectly well. Why complicate things?

edit on 10/11/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Alien Abduct




Spacetime itself appears to be multidimensional.


Multi. More than one.

Yes. Three spatial dimensions. X, Y, and Z. Length, width, and height. Some consider time to be a "dimension" so if you're one of those, four. Boring, I know, but those four seem to work perfectly well. Why complicate things?


Because those four aren't telling the complete story. I gotta go..I'll finish post later



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

When I said multi I meant more than the four...up-down, left-right, foward-backword and time.

I think there is another perspective from which to see this reality, a perspective that isn't constrained by the restrictions imposed by the lower spatial dimensions aforementioned above.

You guys might roll your eyes at me mentioning this but I think it relates to what I am trying to say.

The "foo fighters" during ww1 and ww2 and the light orbs observed at several ICBM silos in Russia and the U.S.

Why are they only seeing a spherical orb? I think there is much more to be seen there but we are restricted by our physical brain/existence. You guys remember Carl Sagan's flat lander's example? The make believe flat people that live in 2D. If we were to see them on their plain roaming about, going about their day. We poke a pencil through their 2D reality. What will they see? A flat line. They would not see the entire pencil because they cannot look up.

They can think about "up" but cannot point to "up", they are physically unable to look up.

I think perhaps entanglement and the delayed choice quantum erasure experiment point to evidence of dimensions aside from the common four.

What do you guys think?



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

Who is to say that life has to come from light years away? We still don't know what lies beneath the surface of several gas giants in our own solar system.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Don't forget the E and B fields ala Maxwell. Then there's the question of whether rotational motion can be considered distinct from translational motion. So you've got x, y, z, e, b, then rotational forms of each according to the right-hand-rule, then one time-like dimension t, for a total of 11. That's what string theory seems to come up with as well.




top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join