Scientists Make Radio Waves Travel Faster Than Light

hah what most people dont know is that there are so many things that the human race still does not know i mean we still discover and rediscover things and find out that actually what we know is just the tip of the universe

Originally posted by soundmatrix2009
hah what most people dont know is that there are so many things that the human race still does not know i mean we still discover and rediscover things and find out that actually what we know is just the tip of the universe

I actually think what you are saying here is the dumb thing.

Humans don't know everything. You can't find a human anywhere who thinks they really do know everything that the universe (existence) has to offer. Even if they pretend to, it's just you're mistake to believe them.

You can ask ANYONE one particular question, and they won't know the answer.

reply to post by Lasheic


Forgive me for going OT here, but I've been reading up a bit on the Byford Dolphin accident and thought this would be a noteworthy extrapolation - even if just because it's quite impressive the forces which you're dealing with.

The human body can physically withstand changes in pressure of about 1 atmosphere. So being ejected out into the vacuum of space, or the wastes of Mars (as seen in Total Recall) wouldn't cause explosive decompression since both fall within 1 atmosphere difference from Earth. So being dropped or raised instantly from a depth of about 33ft in the oceans (about 200 kPa, roughly twice Earth's atmospheric pressure at sealevel) will likely give you a case of the bends - it's not going to make you explode and probably won't kill you (from the pressure alone, anyhow).

So this:



Is complete and utter rubbish.

However, in the Byford Dolphin accident, the diving bell decompressed from 9atm to 1 very suddenly - killing four of the divers and critically injuring the fifth. Most of the fatalities did not involve "blowing up" - but rather the boiling of blood as evident by high fat deposits along major arteries and in major organs due to the denaturing of the lipoprotein - making it insoluble. However, there were some large gas bubbles in some organs - such as the eyes.

The most spectacular of the deaths, diver D4, did actually explode due to his presence by the door exposing him to the highest gradient degree of depressurization.

Diver D4 was shot out through the small jammed hatch door opening, and was ripped apart. Subsequent investigation by forensic pathologists determined D4, being exposed to the highest pressure gradient, violently exploded due to the rapid and massive expansion of internal gases. All of his thoracic and abdominal organs, and even his thoracic spine were ejected, as were all of his limbs. Simultaneously, his remains were expelled through the narrow trunk opening left by the jammed chamber door, less than 60 centimeters (24 inches) in diameter. Fragments of his body were found scattered about the rig. One part was even found lying on the rig’s derrick, 10 meters (30 feet) directly above the chambers. His death was most likely instantaneous and painless.

Wiki entry on the Byford Dolphin accident.

NCBI PubMed: 1988 Jun;9(2):94-101. Originally published in American Journal of Forensic Medicine: An explosive decompression accident.

Now... Matthews described no depressurization component to his journey, was never told about it, noted no physical side effects from the pressure cycling, and the speed at which they traveled planets likely would have precluded the necessary time for proper pressurization/depressurization. They simply walked on and off the ship - like the alien coming down the ramp in the old black & white "the day the Earth stood still" movie.. though it was really described as more of an "elevator" descending from the bottom of the ship.

Considering in that scenario how close he and Tesla and the aliens would have been to the greatest pressure gradient (as he described it), the effects would have been spectacular... and made what happened to diver D4 look like scrapped knee. Especially when you consider that the BD accident occurred at 9 times Earth atmosphere, and Venus's atmosphere is about 92 times greater than Earth's.

And remember the inverse, if I'm not mistaken, would happen upon exiting onto Venus. A sudden change from 1atm to 93atm would have torn them to shreds and splattered their misted remains along the inside of the exit hatch before they were incinerated due to Venus's surface temperature being about 850 degrees Fahrenheit - hotter than the surface of even Mercury.

In either case, the would be dead before they even knew what was happening. The process would occur so fast that it'd be like turning on and off a light switch.

I find that morbidly fascinating for some reason.




[edit on 1-7-2009 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Lasheic


I think I will respond to your post by saying this..

It's pretty simple from my point of view.
In the case you have dozens of scientists/physicists talking about quantum mechanics and having to be edited into a feature-length movie about different topics related to quantum mechanics, of coarse some are going to say.. "My points were misconstrued because they didn't include my entire interview".

What they DID do, if you watch the movie in its entirety, is that after the movie was filmed and put together, they went back to some of the scientists and allowed them to clarify what they really meant. Only because some of the scientists felt that their interviews had been mosconstrued for the movie. So they filmed new interviews with some of the same scientists and included this in the film so that they could clarify.
Some of those "second interviews" are actually more mind-boggling than the first ones.

The physicist that talked about entanglement being proven in the lab had one of these second interviews. He was able to clarify what he really meant and he actually made it seem much more compelling when he started talking about Bose-Einstein Condensates. Just as he said in the movie, there are photos all over the internet proving these exist.

What I didn't like about the movie were the animations. But I thought that they did a reasonable job at moving from scientist to scientist after they had finished their thoughts. Maybe a more accurate movie, from a scientific perspective, would've been to put the scientist interviews one after another without editing anything out. I don't completely agree with using scientists as credible sources of information if all of that information cannot be portrayed correctly as it is intended. However, a movie containing nothing but lengthy interviews with scientists probably wouldn't appeal to alot of people. It is important to keep in mind that this was a movie designed for entertainment and "wow" value. And all of the scientists probably knew what they were getting themselves into as they inevitably had to sign something to be in the feature-length film.

-ChriS

Originally posted by Gorman91
My questions on aether still go unanswered.

If you can't answer it, why do you support it?

Well, I'm bored at work so... Why not. There paying me to surf the web ATM.

Because it was never falsified, and fraudulently misrepresented as being such. As well many many experiments suggest it's presence from the very beginning.

You can find tonnes of papers on it, from all angles and interpretations. Peer reviewed and all. Including models fitted to relativity as well. (seems contradictory to me with regards to Einsteins statements but..)There is also an Einstein aether theory. (don't know much about it). It's been used to address some of the problems or grey areas in relativity. Some are even in a big bang context if that makes you a little more comfortable.

I can post some as an example if you like.

Your questions are based on misunderstanding of the aether I think.
I can easily ask the similar questions of dark matter or dark energy? Or the other mythical creations used to support the standard theory.
Yet you must be comfortable with this because the smart people say so.

The photon propagation is misguided, I gave a link for that as a possibility. You ignored it. You also haven't supplied any references for your claims . Nor answered any questions posed at you.

You have me completely wrong, I do not believe everything can be explained, just the opposite. I'm a skeptic of the ridiculous mythical inventions used to prop up the standard theory which the big bang cannot survive without. I'm anti religious yet a spiritualist as well, I believe in the concept of the divine within. A mute point, but you a raising questions regarding my belief system. Which is malleable.

Is it not ironic that as a believer who makes that statement at the same time is certain that human beings can even comprehend the beginnings of the universe. Such is the arrogance of man.

To me it doesn't matter since we can barely understand the universe as it is today. At least in a big bang context.

And for the record, I don't disagree with everything Einstein claimed, I acknowledged him as a great thinker.

For example Einstein did not believe in black holes! I agree.

So the shoe is on the other foot with that, I'm sure someone here could have set Einstein straight on that one. The blasphemer!!

[edit on 2-7-2009 by squiz]

everything is made of coherent light right? so if light can travel the speed of light cant everything else too? :O just a little theory that ive been wondering about for ages...

This is not as impressive as it sounds.

I haven't read through the pages of replies (I normally do before I allow myself to comment, but this time I'm indulging myself), so sorry if what I'm about to type up has already been stated.

Imagine you are standing in the middle of a room with the light on. The light switch is on the wall some distance from your position. You want to turn the light of (for argument sake). So you will transmit a signal from your hand to the switch. The signal will be transmitted by a long stick you just happen to have in your hand. The stick is positioned with one end in your hand and the other against (touching) the switch. Now, you move your hand and the signal is transmitted not just superluminally, but instantaneously!
As you move one end of the stick the other end reacts at exactly the same time (it's a perfectly ridged stick, for the pedantic). Thus, information can be transferred from your hand to the switch instantly.

John Singleton's experiment is analogous to the long stick example above.

[edit on 1/7/2009 by Recouper]

Originally posted by trace_the_truth

Originally posted by soundmatrix2009
hah what most people dont know is that there are so many things that the human race still does not know i mean we still discover and rediscover things and find out that actually what we know is just the tip of the universe

I actually think what you are saying here is the dumb thing.

Humans don't know everything. You can't find a human anywhere who thinks they really do know everything that the universe (existence) has to offer. Even if they pretend to, it's just you're mistake to believe them.

You can ask ANYONE one particular question, and they won't know the answer.

Tracethetruth, Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying but you seem to me to be agreeing with soundmartix that much is still unknown, so not sure why you said "what you are saying here is the dumb thing". Anyway scientists would agree with both of you, there is much we don't know.

Look at A brief history of astronomy and you will see that basically we have been "wrong" for 500 years about astronomy, so we really aren't arrogant enough to look at that and say "but this time we're right". That's not the way science works. Each of those men came up with the best theory they knew how based on the best observational evidence they had. As observations improved, so did the theories, and as the theories improved, we figured out how to make better observations.

Newton is the last one on that list, and Newtonian physics worked pretty well for a long time when we weren't concerned with traveling at very fast velocities. So can we say Einstein proved Newton wrong? My perspective is that Newton's view was incomplete, rather than completely wrong. Many people including Einstein felt that quantum mechanics may be our modern version of Newtonian physics, it explains observations pretty well, just like Newton's theories did, but it's probably incomplete.

Of course we don't know everything, all those scientists would be out of a job if we did. And as soon as we make better observations or conduct better experiments tomorrow, we may prove that what we think we know today is wrong, or as in the examples of Newtonian physics, or quantum mechanics, incomplete.

And it takes a long time and a lot of experiments to prove the old theory was wrong and the new theory was right. And then the new theory probably isn't the ultimate right answer either, it's just the newest best theory we have until we find a better one.

And Einstein himself arguably one of the smartest guys around didn't know everything either, he had a hard time accepting some of the less logical conclusions of quantum mechanics, Once that work he started is completed and we have a better theory, we may find that faster than light travel is possible. Or maybe it already has been completed in a black lab somewhere and the public just doesn't know about it yet.

good digging thanks for the post.

reply to post by squiz


I often wonder what Einstein might think of "White Holes".

And I also wonder how he might view wormholes in general with relation to the idea that all black holes are "entrances" to wormholes and white holes are the "exits". Especially since it's quite feasible that the two might exist in completely different timeframes and completely different areas of the universe.

If wormholes are capable of sending matter and subatomic particles back in time, perhaps white holes are what dumped elementary particles into the early universe just after the big bang. Maybe white holes are responsible for the big-bang altogether.

It would make sense in a way. At least in the sense that as the universe gets smaller and smaller (as you go backwards in time) towards the moment of the big-bang, there is a smaller and smaller area for white holes to exist in. Energy would become exponentially compressed as you go backwards to the moment of the big-bang since that energy would have to fill the space smaller than the nucleus of an atom. I only portray this effect going backwards in time because it's easier to understand that way.

Hence the explosion..
-ChriS

[edit on 1-7-2009 by BlasteR]

Originally posted by BLUE ARMS

Originally posted by Daniem
The universe expands faster than the speed of light, and some of the galaxies we can see right now are currently moving away from us faster than the speed of light

Explain yourself "Voldermort"


Regards

I didn't think this was possible- based on what theory??

[edit on 2-7-2009 by catalyst2466]

If radio waves can exceed the speed of light then other energies and applications can exceed the speed of light also.What a great step forward.

Originally posted by Recouper
The stick is positioned with one end in your hand and the other against (touching) the switch. Now, you move your hand and the signal is transmitted not just superluminally, but instantaneously!
[edit on 1/7/2009 by Recouper]

No. No it's not.

So radio waves picked up a couple notches create stars? Now im starting to believe my wacky theories of stars..that the stars we see at night are the extent of your thoughts..so its the length of a thought

I hate to burst people's bubble here, and I am surprised if no one has said this yet but..... You guys do know that radio waves are light waves right?



8th grade science........

So basically all they did by speeding up radio waves is speed up really low frequency light.....

Yippie?

Originally posted by catalyst2466

Originally posted by BLUE ARMS

Originally posted by Daniem
The universe expands faster than the speed of light, and some of the galaxies we can see right now are currently moving away from us faster than the speed of light

Explain yourself "Voldermort"


Regards

I didn't think this was possible- based on what theory??

[edit on 2-7-2009 by catalyst2466]

I agree it seems to defy common sense but that's what scientists think. Space itself can expand faster than light when you compare 2 different reference points, but nothing is traveling "through space" at faster than the speed of light.
en.wikipedia.org...

The universe has not been the same at all times in its history; for example, the relative populations of quasars and galaxies have changed and space itself appears to have expanded. This expansion accounts for how Earth-bound scientists can observe the light from a galaxy 30 billion light years away, even if that light has traveled for only 13 billion years; the very space between them has expanded. This expansion is consistent with the observation that the light from distant galaxies has been redshifted; the photons emitted have been stretched to longer wavelengths and lower frequency during their journey. The rate of this spatial expansion is accelerating, based on studies of Type Ia supernovae and corroborated by other data.

Originally posted by DaMod
I hate to burst people's bubble here, and I am surprised if no one has said this yet but..... You guys do know that radio waves are light waves right?



8th grade science........

So basically all they did by speeding up radio waves is speed up really low frequency light.....

Yippie?

Hmmm that's already been mentioned, but I think it's you who are missing the point, they didn't speed up either light or radio waves, go back and read the post by astyanax on the previous page. He's right, and the story even says so if you ignore the headlines and read it carefully.

reply to post by DaMod

I hate to burst people's bubble here, and I am surprised if no one has said this yet but..... You guys do know that radio waves are light waves right?

I think (hope) most people already knew that radio waves were light waves, they just didn't look at the paper very critically and took it's misleading wording at face value. Kind of like the old joke about scientists discovering substantial quantities of dihydrogen monoxide in Lake Michigan (or whatever). Some people get it... some people don't at first, but it seems odd so they question more critically (then the spark lights), and some people jump to the conclusion that the government's trying to kill them by allowing industry to dump this hazardous molecule into their water supply. When it finally does click for them that dihydrogen monoxide IS water, they typically disappear from the conversation or move the goal post to fluoride or something.

I think certain phrasing and trigger words (in the above example, "Michigan" and "Monoxide" correlate immediately in many people's heads as Michigan = Industry = Pollution like Mercury; Monoxide = Carbon Monoxide = toxic = bad chemical. Compounded by the fact that the article was written poorly and can conceivably be interpreted as suggesting Radio and Light waves are different.

And some people are just plain dumb or unwilling to evaluate evidence that contradicts their established presuppositions. Not referring to anyone in this thread in particular.. but in general, there really are some people still think Alchemy and the Four Elements are a valid alternative to Chemistry and Atomic Theory. *Shrug*


I think there's also a sizable segment of people who view science and scientists as separate and distant from their everyday lives. Most people apply the scientific method (to some degree or another) in their everyday lives to deal with new situations, troubleshoot problems, etc, and don't even realize it. Some people will merely cow to their own appeal to authority since they don't believe they're capable of identifying errors or misleading statements that a scientist would overlook. Perhaps that's even the case, and you are just misunderstanding. That's fine. There is no such thing as a dumb question when asked with honest curiosity - because questioning indicates a desire for understanding. One of the few surviving verifiable quotes of Hypatia's is, I consider, timeless advice for all ages. She said; "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than to not think at all". I don't take this to mean that you are obliged to barrage a well established science with asinine questions you copy-pasted from a political/religious/pseudoscience site which have been continually refuted ad nausium yet never retracted. It means you should weigh the evidence, exercise your rationality, entertain other people's proposals, and make amendments to your own thoughts as deemed necessary by evidence and reason. Don't be afraid to make an obvious blundering error. We all do. Embrace you ability to make errors, because this is what science is based on. Not on proving that something IS true, but by attempting to falsify our explanations until only the ones best supported by evidence remain.

Making a mistake like thinking Radio and Light waves are separate may betray you as belonging in the shallow end of the pool with big yellow floaties on your arms... but, damn it, at least you're in the pool and trying to swim.

On the inverse side, I think some simply reject what science has to say either in part or in whole due to either distrust, envy of power, or preexisting inflexible suppositions instilled by the family, religion, politics, or whatever source.

So even if that little "ding! WTF, this doesn't quite sound right" lightbulb pops up over their head - some don't question further, unless the subject has a existing distrust of scientists and is merely looking for some kind of ammo to "stick it to those ignorant eggheads who think they know so much" in a dazzling display of what appears to be narcissistic(?) schadenfreude.

I may not be quite on base here with these sweeping generalizations and suppositions, but it is just a supposition and generalization - nothing more than a passing muse. Oh.. and an excuse to use the term schadenfreude.

So yeah... I really do think (hope) most people here already knew that Light and Radio waves were the same thing, and that in a different context (such as a pop quiz) they would have gotten right. It's just the applicator of that understanding is a bit jammed for whatever reason.


[edit on 2-7-2009 by Lasheic]

reply to post by squiz


You still haven't explain how I ignored your link on the photon.

It doesn't matter what you posted. The fact remains they have an actual photo against you. Photo > theory.

And you still haven't told me why the photon must exist in your theory...


your viewpoint in spirituality is null. This is science, not spirituality. You cannot mix the two and to do so is wrong. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

All things in the universe are understandable in time. Even if the human species has yet to evolve the capacity to understand it.

We understand the universe plenty. You just refuse to see it that way, blinded by your spirituality.

The fact remains that they use space time altering and black hole-like methods to create fusions in France and alter space time in US facilities.

You still have not yet explained my question.

Why doesn't aether leave trails? And why does the photon have to exist? And why doesn't all matter slow through the aether? These are my questions which remain unanswered.


If black holes and relativity do not exist, how can they do what they do in Switzerland, France, and the US.


Don't digress into spirituality BS. This is science. Keep your faith at home.

Originally posted by Gorman91
You still haven't explain how I ignored your link on the photon.

I don't need to explain it, it's self evident.

It doesn't matter what you posted. The fact remains they have an actual photo against you. Photo > theory.

Photo = theory is that right? hardly scientific, in fact that is defined as a logical fallacy. The truth is it is not a picture of a photon.

And you still haven't told me why the photon must exist in your theory...

It's not my theory, Maxwell made his revolutionary contribution to science based on the Aether. In fact it really doesn't need to exist in my view of the universe, I accept the fact that it may exist.

your viewpoint in spirituality is null. This is science, not spirituality. You cannot mix the two and to do so is wrong. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Agreed, as I said it's a mute point. Can you read? Yes we've all heard the catch phrase. The big bang, Black holes, Dark matter, Nuetron stars that defy well known laws of physics, strange matter, inflation. These are all extraordinary claims. All the evidence though is very, very ordinary and only exists mathematically, not experimentally.

All things in the universe are understandable in time. Even if the human species has yet to evolve the capacity to understand it.

Really? I think nature will always keep a few secrets to itself. You contradict yourself again. earlier you said this...

The fallacy in your argument is that you think everything can be explained. Why does it?

You also make contradictory statements like this...

The particle itself is the wave

And huge leaps of faith like this....

The french fussion rector is using light to pressurize and heat up hydrogen to become helium.
This would not be possible without bending space time.

Oh right, care to explain that? you said it your self - Light, heat, pressure. Ummm.... where's the space time? Logical fallacy. Shall we count em?

We understand the universe plenty. You just refuse to see it that way, blinded by your spirituality.

Then you can demonstrate in controlled test how dark matter can affect anything? can you show that inflation actually affects anything in a controlled test. Can any of the assumptions based on the big bang be demonstrated in controlled test?

My picture of the universe is based on laboratory experiments, verifiable and repeatable. Yours is not.
My philosophy and personal experiences is the basis for my spirituality, not science.

The fact remains that they use space time altering and black hole-like methods to create fusions in France and alter space time in US facilities.

Absolute rubbish.
Show me the papers, show me the data from the controlled experiments.
You use India daily as a reference and claim to be using the scientific method. Hilarious.

You still have not yet explained my question.

Why doesn't aether leave trails? And why does the photon have to exist? And why doesn't all matter slow through the aether? These are my questions which remain unanswered.

Why does dark matter not leave a contrail? A contrail is the condensation of water turning to ice crystals. Ice in air, two different mediums.

The photon travels as a wave. Simple

Do neutrinos slow us down? no they are not even bothered by matter at all?

Your arguments are ridiculous. That's the nicest way I can put it. It's a strawman, a reductio ad absurdum, another logical fallacy.

If black holes and relativity do not exist, how can they do what they do in Switzerland, France, and the US.

Ridiculous statement.
Another logical fallacy. Again show me the papers. I never said relativity does not exist. Einstein said black holes don't exist.

Don't digress into spirituality BS. This is science. Keep your faith at home.

I wasn't, it was in reference to you labeling me as a materialist. Nothing more.

This is science, then lets do it scientifically then. Show me the controlled experiments that prove Dark matter, black holes, inflation etc..
And not tabloid news articles.

Since you weren't interested in the links I offered (very telling) Here's some Aether papers for you to chew on. My position is that it may exist and is suggested to exist by experimentation. Space time on the other hand is a mental construct. Dark matter is undetectable, after billions of dollars and over thirty years of looking, not a wimp to be found.

arxiv.org...
adsabs.harvard.edu...
adsabs.harvard.edu...
arxiv.org...
www.springerlink.com...
flux.aps.org...
www.adsabs.harvard.edu...
prola.aps.org...
www.epola.co.uk...
muller.lbl.gov... Fixed frame of reference in a big bang context, he's mainstream but I do like Muller.
www.aspden.org... (a collection of 14 Aether papers)
www.aetherometry.com... (Dozens more here)
arxiv.org...:+aether/0/1/0/all/0/1 (arxiv search showing 25 Aether related papers)

Hmmm... last link doesn't show the search results, just search for Aether.

Would you like some more? This is fun.

Just to Add, I agree this experiment is not breaking any known laws of physics.

Today's post was brought to you by the word "logical fallacy".

[edit on 2-7-2009 by squiz]

reply to post by squiz


It was a photo of a photon . Read how they did it. it is not a theory. It is a known item seen. They also detect photons in CERN, and plenty of other places. You can chose to believe they "might" exist. The rest of the world has evidence a plenty.


A photon does not act like a wave. It is an arrow, not a spreading out item. A single photon will go on its merry way in a line. Not a wave. The photon is oscillating, describing it's type of photon. The item itself is what is propagating the wave.

The only waves it makes is the waves of probability it can exist in, and it's ability to use these waves to quantum tunnel or do other things.


Also, dark matter does leave waves. it's "matter". It just can't be seen optically. You can't see x rays optically. Does that mean it doesn't happen? No of course not. And so it is very likely we have made contact with dark matter already.


Right now it is seeming very likely Dark matter is what is slowing down the probes leaving the solar system. What else could it be? Dark matter is suppose to be the glue of the universe. So we're pretty much in sync for that glue to be there.


Fusions Power? The French use lasers that literally compress the hydrogen with massive amounts of heat. Fusion!

Also, they use plasma. If your argument is correct, why is there no visual evidence of plasma bending the visuals as in space? Does this affect mysteriously not occur on Earth?


"I don't need to explain it, it's self evident. "

I hate this argument. Such idiocracy.

Tell how.


Also, I did not contradict myself. I clearly said that today there's no law that says we can learn everything. Then I said the same, and said there's no reason why we can't evolve to learn them all.

Where's the contradiction?

As to any other contrdictions or inability for you to find experiments, I'll use your point. It's self evident you didn't look them up.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Gorman91]

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Gorman91]

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Gorman91]

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Gorman91]