Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Speed of light broken with basic lab kit

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 10:35 AM
link   
well said and so done, in the new thread "E = ?".

- qo.



TN1

posted on Dec, 9 2002 @ 12:59 PM
link   
To qite one ,
hello there ,i am a new member but it happens to be a physicist and a mathematician .Well i always want to have proofs for everything ,but that is not possible all the times!I am now 25 and i am doing my own research in thr field of theoretical physics.I think i will agree with you ...
E=??? We don't really know ,and this is something conventional that we are using for brief calculations ,but the others don't know about mathematics and physics ,so it is better to explain each-time !!!!The haven't realize the problem with gravity!Since the transmission of electromagnetic is happening with the speed of light ,electroweak theory has unified the 2 forces in nature and they have been unified with the strong nuclear force ,so we have one force with 3 different expresions ,but the gravity acts immediately !!!!That implies immediate transmision of the gravity waves ,something that can not be explained ....We think that matter is attracted but the driving force in the universe is repulsive and tends to move everything away!!!!And i don't know if they Know the fact that matter is more than antimatter in the universe and if these 2 quantities are balanced there would be only a universe of radiation.
I don't know if you have studied about Hawking radiation but it worths the effort to do so!!!For everyone else there are good links in the web about evaporation of the black holes ,try to understand what do you read first!!But the explanation ,because there is no proof ,of the Hawking particles and how do they escape from the black hole is not satisfactory ....There is a phenomenon called tunelling ,a very practical example is the scanneling tunneling microscope (STM)but there is the quantum tunneling as well that i have been working for some months....
Well i can say that the speed of light is not a limit ,but a very considerable reference point !!!!



posted on Dec, 9 2002 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Wow thanks for your moron award comment. I think you deserve a good kick in the rear since what I said is not wrong, it is just not right EITHER. And if you read a certain other thread (I think it was the laser artillery one) you'd see quite the lengthy discussion on what E DOES in fact equal as far as we know today, and you'd see that I just don't go around reposting everywhere there is a little leftover mistake.

E= a bunch of things depending on what the hell you want to find, for chemistry and more simplistic physics E = mc^2. The more technical you want to get the bigger the formula. E = whatever we need it to = because it is a good approximation and does the job well enough until you need to get very accurate.

Now anyways, I wonder what our new Physicist friend here thinks of my idea that there is no speed of light, only the fact that the wave lengths change so that it travels a distance of 186,000 miles a second. But in actuallity if it is coming towards us, it is travelling faster, therefore the wave length shortens and it has more distance to cover since it has a longer path to follow. Same with if it is coming towards us from something moving away, it is travelling slower, so the wave length lengthens and not as much distance must be travelled to still travel that 186,000 miles per second.

What are your thoughts on that TN1? Anyone else ever thought of that? Or disproved it? I'd be interested in hearing more about it.

Sincerely,
no signature


TN1

posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 07:28 AM
link   
The phenomenon is called blue-shifting,red-shifting is when the light is fainter than it should be i.e the expansion of the universe ,because the stars have been moved apart and they are tending to move apart from each other .Therefore as i told you the last time the driving force in universe is repulsive and the gravitation cannot slow down the expansion of the universe.As for the spped of light ,its true for our physics !!!!But the fact is that there are almost massless particles that can travel with greater that the light speed !!!Another form of radiation as the Hawking radiation ,they have said that light can escape from the attraction of a blackhole and they are using the annihilation of the particles to claim that so one particle is being created before the event horizon and the other after???Well we are not quite sure what is going one ........



posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 10:03 PM
link   
I know what Blue//Red shift is, that wasn't my question, my question is WHAT IF the speed of light is not a constant, but the wave length makes the ratio or whatever such that the speed of light always seems to be 186,000 miles per-second.

Now, as for the repulsive force in this universe, there is mixed debate on that. Scientists now also think there is a possibility that in another 10-20 billion years, the repulsive dark matter will reverse its effects, and collapse the universe back in on itself.

They are currently trying to test this through deepspace probing of the effects matter is having on eachother, and if the speed of expansion way out has seemed to slowed or something...very technical, very above my head


Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 10:08 PM
link   
No that hawkings radiation has nothing to do with the speed of light (i believe), it has to do with virtual particles

Particles created in a complete vaccum, such as right at the event horizon of a Black Hole, when the Virtual Particles are created, they are created with the mass of the black hole. One mater, one anti-mater. The one closest to the black hole is sucked in, and the one furthest, using the laws of newton (opposite = reaction) escapes.

Which one is completely random, but it in effect is what makes black holes evaporate after billions - trillions of years, or in the case of particle smashers, billionths of seconds.

It is because for ever 2 units of matter lost, one is reclaimed, and one escapes as radiation or such.

I'm pretty sure that is what you were talking about....but maybe there is more to it or something else that you were referring to.



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 05:40 AM
link   
TN1,

Are you honestly sure your an astrophysicist? You sure don't seem to know some of your stuff there... Things that an astrophysicist should/would know...

Freemason is right about hawking's radiation. And as far as I know, he's not an astrophysicist... Fess up... no hard feeling's, if your lieing... Just don't go on with your claims until you learn more about it... Maybe I should claim I'm a brain surgeon and post about thing's I've heard about, but harldy even understand...



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 07:43 AM
link   
well, what TN1 says about blue/red shifts is true. i'm not sure if covers what FM was talking about with the speed of light, but then i can't quite get my head round that particular post. as for the rest of TN1's post, i would say that the assertion that gravity cannot slow the universe down is still conjecture at this point. to my knowledge we still haven't nailed that question down.

i would also like to point out the hawkings is by no means a perfect source for information. he is a theoretical physicist, nothing more, and he just usually applies himself to astrohpysical problems. i work with many doctors and several professors that don't give hawking's work the time of day, because it simply doesn't marry up to observation.

- qo.



posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I do not think we should try to make things go the speed of light or faster. I believe that it's impossible for matter to accelerate beyond that point. We should try to travel around time. Bend the universe. (hyperspace)


TN1

posted on Dec, 19 2002 @ 07:53 AM
link   
TN1 here,
with reference to what JamesG says ,is better not to give you an answer because i will come to your level!!
About Hawking radiation ,it has not been proved yet and i did mean the virtual particles .I know that they are created in the event horizon ,matter and antimatter but the explanation is poor...Believe me there is a big debate about this...
And for my friend JamesG,
just a basic reaction to understand what is an antiparticle:n-p+e+v_
Where n is the neutron ,p is the proton ,e is the electron and v_ is the antineutrino.Neutrinos ...If you Know anything about them....And again can anybody answer me how many quarks made the proton and the neutron ,especially for JanesG...Well two up and one down for thr proton and two down and one up for the neutron .And a new topic if anyone have thoughts is the Schrodinger's cat!!
Please send your thoughts about this ,recall schrodingers equation for the energy of a particle either on a finite or a infinite square well ,including time as well ...I am waiting your answers!!!



posted on Dec, 19 2002 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Has any research been done in regards to folding space ? Travelling from point A to Point B instantaneously.
The concept is explained basically in the movie Event Horizon



posted on Dec, 19 2002 @ 08:15 AM
link   
The speed of light speed limit is a useless concept in a "non-local" theory like QM..

Just my two cents...



posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Folding space is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. Yeah sure you don't have to travel any distance at all, but the space still does. And infact the space has to travel more distance to be folded, because it has to travel in an arc...

so ok you fold the piece of paper, and because you folded it, you can travel from point A to point B without moving. But as I said...folding point B to point A requires that point B moves to point A, still taking the same amount of time if not more.

That is if you could even generate enough energy to fold something that is expanding at nearly the speed of light, and has no physical existance.

That's a lot of energy. Which in my opinion is a long the same lines of why you can not time travel, because you'd have to return the universe to the point it was at when that time was, therefore you couldn't Time travel even if it were possible, because you'd literally have to move the entire mass of the universe, which cant be done because that means you'd have to find as much energy as is in the whole universe. In effect, you can only move less than half the universe, at the expense of the other half.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 08:02 AM
link   
But warping space seems very on the money. If you warped space in your area into a HUGE bubble, and thus you "stretched" space to more than the distance it was linearly. Then in theory, you could travel linearly through the bubble, and cover more distance while doing so.

For instance, if you stretched space so that one mile rose in a curve above you from one foot away from you, to however high above your head. And you took that one step, thus meeting with the fabric of space that you've stretched yet again, when you release that warp in space, you'd be that whole mile away, as it returns to its normal position. In theory of course.

But imagine warping space so that 1 foot = a mile, than travelling at 1 mile a second. That's 5280 miles in a second in real space, but so little effort is needed for warped space. So if we could acheive even HALF the speed of light, we could in effect travel many thousands if not millions of times faster than the speed of light.

I guess this means we better start finding a charge to the fabric of space time, so that we can apply an opposite charge to it and warp it


Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Originally posted by TN1:

"Please send your thoughts about this ,recall schrodingers equation for the energy of a particle either on a finite or a infinite square well ,including time as well ...I am waiting your answers!!!"

just what is your question tn1? i deal with an awkward form of Schro's equation every day. i can certainly provide solutions to the standard finite and infinite barrier problem, even with time dependence. its all textbook material. do you want it applied to the cat?

- qo.



posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Quarks, its odd but the whole universe is esentially 4 different things. And in their different combinations on an individual level they really make no difference at all


But when you add them together, by the billions, you have an amazingly myriad of creations.

There are up down and strange quarks, there are also anti-quarks but I'm having trouble finding them...... it surely is impossible to think of something existing without being made up of something. ... ahh... the 6 quarks
Up//Down//Strange//Charm//Top//Bottom

Well...I guess this place is nothing but a bunch of Strange Quarks.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Hey Devil's Advocate? I guess Gravity is local then? Because it is Quantum Mechanical. Take your two cents back.

Sincerely,
no signature


TN1

posted on Dec, 21 2002 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Quit one ,it would be a great idea to apply schrodingers equation to the cat ....I do know the solutions of schrodingre's equations ..Something else my final year project was on Poisson's equation and the solution for a spherical symmetry called manning condensation in a
Fermi-dirac gas ,you know a gas governed from Fermi-Dirac statistics ...Amazingly i found that there is an attraction of negatively ions ,very odd indeed since negative and negative ions cannot be attracted unless there is a driving force....
Have you ever heard about the quantum fluids ,for example when we apply a very large magnetic field then matter is behaving differently the particles stick together and createa quantum fluid.....



posted on Dec, 21 2002 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Interesting, I wonder if that has anything to do with Liquid Helium, which doesn't need the huge amount of magnatism, but it too behaves oddly.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Dec, 21 2002 @ 10:07 PM
link   
How can we determine that nothing can go fater then light. That makes no sense to me what if we found sometin smaller and goes faster. WE are making theories with not all the info but we think we got all the info






top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join