It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


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


Scientists Make Radio Waves Travel Faster Than Light

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 08:53 PM

Originally posted by Gorman91
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.

It's the phase of a photon, the effect of a photon not the photon itself.
I know photons exists through experimentation. My opinions are based on experiments. Show me the controlled tests for black holes, dark matter and inflation. How can we test your assumptions? This is the scientific method.

A photon does not act like a wave.

Wait on you said it was a wave, the the photon is the wave. Light is part of the EM spectrum. My understanding of physics is fairly elementary. But even primary school kids probably know that statement is completely false.

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.

Then why should we "see" the Aether ?
X- rays can be confirmed in a controlled test, this is worlds apart from an assumption of dark matter based on a theory.
Likely, is not a scientific statement. Show me the controlled test for dark matter.

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.

Likely? Could it be we are grounded in the wrong assumption? There are many other possibilities, the inability for you to think of other possibilities does not mean Dark matter did it.

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

I'll ask again, where's the spacetime?

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?

You'll have to explain that, I have no idea what that means. What are you referring too?

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

Look what up? I keep asking for the papers, you want to do this scientifically, where's the data? Show me the controlled experiments to forward your hypothesis.

Show me the controlled tests for you statements. Show me the papers.
I've shown some papers on the Aether from actual scientists. Care to tackle some of the contents? The time indicated by your reply tells me, you once again probably just ignored them. Hands over Ears, eyes shut, screaming "lalalalalalalalala".

Give me some evidence. This is science after all.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by squiz]

posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:24 PM
There is no universal speed limit.

The limit on the speed of light is just how fast light travels. Only light.

Something can go faster than the speed of light.

All relativity means is that if something goes faster than light, the reflection of light off of that object will still be traveling at the speed of light.

Traveling at the speed of light does not make time stop. Just the appearance of time.

If you traveled faster than the speed of light it won't mean you go back in time. It is all about observational data.

Take a person and a stationary clock for instance.

If you were to travel away from the clock at the speed of light, the hands of the clock would appear to stop, that is because the reflected light from that clock would be traveling with you.

If you were to travel towards the clock at the speed of light, the hands of the clock would appear to move faster, because the light reflecting off the clock would reach you faster.

It's the same thing with sound waves. A motorcycle traveling to you has a different pitch as one traveling away from you. The origin of the sound waves travels at the same pace, the speed of sound, the difference is the observers distance from that sound and the length of the wave frequency.

It is possible to go faster than the speed of light. It's just theoretically impossible to see faster than reflected light can travel.

posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:43 PM

Originally posted by warrenb

Originally posted by rocksolidbrain
FTL ? Not so fast , I'm sorry

That article is written by a very very less educated person probably for 5 year old audience and people are jumping to conclusions. In other words this is called "sensational hype to sell some boring news".

A more straight forward article is here :

This explains that nothing is moving faster than light, he is only firing the radio pulses very fast through an array of antenna, so that all pulses seem to arrive at once at the receiver. It does produce some nice effects but its not FTL.....

Your link clearly even states that it is FASTER THAN LIGHT

John Singleton of Los Alamos and his collaborators have built a radio transmitter that incorporates a radio wave source that moves superluminally (faster than light). The emitted waves have several unusual properties. For example, they lose much less power over a distance than do ordinary radio waves; thus, they show promise for long-distance, low-power broadcasting applications.

superluminally = FTL

The amplifiers can be triggered in such a way that this source moves the length of the transmitter faster than the speed of light.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by warrenb]

Unfortunately, Mr Rocksolidbrain may be right:

The amplifiers can be triggered in such a way that this source moves the length of the transmitter faster than the speed of light.

In that article. the wave is only moving FTL, within the transmitter... There's NO mention of the waves going FTL once it leaves the transmitter.

If it moved FTL beyond the transmitter, in air, or space unsupported, I'm pretty sure, they're more than willing to discuss it clearly and enthusiastically.

thus, they show promise for long-distance, low-power broadcasting applications.

No mention of FTL communications in that case
FTL is only within the device.

posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 10:15 PM
If I repeat what others have said please forgive me, I got tired of reading and skipped to the end.

Forget the aether crap, it doesn't exist. Sound doesn't travel in a vacuum because sound is a compression wave, much like the waves of an earthquake. They need a medium with mass to move through. A vacuum has no mass so the sound wave can not continue. Like a water wave, run out of water the wave stops. Light is a self-propegating wave. It is compossed of an electric wave that creates a magnetic wave 90 degrees to iself (perpendicular); that magnetic wave creates an electric wave and so on. As the waves are not pushing matter into other matter; like a compression wave does, they do not need a medium with mass. This doesn't mean that they can't travel through such a media just don't need it.

Radio waves are part of the electromagnetic spectrum just like visible light, and x-rays just much longer wavelengths. They move at the same speed and for all intents and purposes of this discussion are the same thing.

OK now that we are up to speed and high school physics, the FTL argument. As radio waves are light waves (Read above) then they can't move faster then light waves. The only explination (other then error) is that a way was found for light to move faster then through a vacuum. As a vacuum doesn't have the particles that would slow light down any it is theorized that that is the maximum speed of regular particles. This has nothing to do with Einstein he didn't say that. He said that nothing could be accelerated faster then the speed of light. If the speed of light could be found to be increased through some new media that means that other objects should be able to also. He didn't pinpoint the upper limit of light. We have done that since then on theory. The reason that the speed of light is considered the ultimate speed is because it is independent of movement. Or in other words if you are standing still and a car passes at 50 it looks different then if you are going 45 and a car passes at 50. This is not true of light. It maintains the same speed no matter what speed you are going.

All that said, does this mean FTL communications? maybe. FTL from mars? um no... The waves would still have to pass through the vacuum of space and would slow back down to the previous assumed upper limit.

As for the duality of light. There is none. Light does not have mass, or particles. Einstein; yes him again, won a noble prize for the photoelectric effect. The phenomenon that makes solar cells work. It seems that light, even though it is a wave, has distinct quanta of energy. This does not make that energy a particle, it just means that because it is quantified that it can act like a particle.

Hope I didn't miss anything. And excuse my simplistic view for you physics buffs out there.

posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 10:32 PM
reply to post by squiz

The photon only acts like a wave for probability's sake. it is not a wave itself. it goes in a straight line. However, at its scale, there's a probability that it could go in through two very small spaces. Hence it can interact with itself and form waves of probability.

Aether, how you describe it, would be visible. You are describing it as a universally present item that allows light to propagate through it. This means that it should be seen. If it cannot be seen, light could not propagate through it. Dark matter is different. It is clouds in the vacuum of space which bend space time just like the air you breathe does.

Proof of a black hole?

The only way the above image is possible is to have constant input of matter. Constant input. A star cannot input, it can only output. Unless, of course, you can find a star with a line up of planets heading into it going for many many light years. That jet is many light years out. This is not possible with normal stars. Only something so strong that it sucks of matter and shoots it out at the poles can do that.

And by the way, that's not a star. That's a whole galaxy.

ITER uses highly focused lasers on one target. ITER works like a star. Pressurizing Hydro into Helium. This is, in essence, the smaller counterpart to a black hole.

We do it with magnets, but the same occurs. Items are pushed together into a merger unit. This is not possible without relativity.

This is the basis of a black hole's possibility.

Allow my European friends to explain it.

We are making a star on Earth with magnets instead of gravity, but the affect is still the same on space time.

I also invite you to this discussion

Also, let this guy explain it.

It's all related. I even wrote an article on how they could do it for space travel right here, it's in my profile.

And once again, this ITER disproves what you've been saying about plasma and space time distortion.

Let me ask. If the distortion of space time is an illusion of plasma, why is it not seen in ITER?

posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 11:27 PM

Originally posted by squiz

Give me some evidence. This is science after all.

I generally find your arguments pretty rational and convincing. However I have a couple of papers for you to look at:

Cold fusion- while this doesn't disprove the MIT cover-up, it provides an alternate possible explanation.

Introduction to the cold fusion experiments of Melvin Miles

He spent 5 months getting negative results before he got any positive results. He tested 94 cathodes from 12 sources, some gave positive results, some didn't.

So while we can't rule out an MIT cover up, it seems just as likely to me that what MIT said is true, whoever said they massaged the data doesn't understand experimental correction factors and perhaps they were using the "wrong" cathodes for the test, or at least not the ones that yield positive results.

You also said you don't believe in black holes. Since you seem like a very smart guy I found that particularly puzzling. Just on a thought experiment of looking at ever increasing masses and escape velocities, black holes seem inevitable unless you conclude that there are upper limits to the mass or density of objects that are different from accepted beliefs? Black holes are notoriously difficult to observe so while it's hard to "prove" them beyond any doubt, there is pretty compelling observational evidence such as this

Just some observations: Dark matter and dark energy are place holders for future theories to explain observational evidence we can't currently explain. The current theories to explain them seem inadequate. And the aether links you provided are interesting, though I wouldn't say they "prove" aether any more than the black hole paper "proves" black holes, they do seem to support considering those phenomena as possible until more experimental evidence is in. Astronomy, cosmology and physics is a very exciting field right now as new technologies make ever more precise measurements possible, what we think we know today may be disproven tomorrow.

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 12:46 AM
reply to post by Gorman91

If Aether is anything like the zero point field or time/space as a singular entity then light is just one factor in the equation. The space/time "fabric" represents everything around us. We know this because time permeates the universe not so much as a super-large macro entity but because it permeates the quantum realm of the extremely small throughout the entire universe more as if time is a prerequisite for atoms and molecules to exist in the first place. Therefore, time is almost pre-programmed into all physical matter in the universe from the bottom up.

If the aether is a reality, then it would undoubtedly have to include space, time, and light. Correct?

I'm not convinced about the idea of "aether" though. Mainly because it assumes alot we just don't understand yet. There are already alot of permeable theories related to how the universe is structured from the bottom up with matter and energy we cannot directly observe. Any one of those might be responsible for creating the effects of the theoretical "aether".

The very fabric of space/time (represented by all physical matter in the form of gravity). There is also the Zero Point Field. AND, again, other things to consider like non-locality and quantum entanglement.

If One molecule can exist in multiple places in the universe at once, then it inevitably involves a transfer of information at faster than the speed of light. It has been suggested that the zero point field is the true mechanism by which entanglement is possible in the first place. And that would make sense in alot of ways. It just raises alot more questions than it answers (that is pretty much normal, though).

All I'm saying is this.. There are plenty of possible explanations for how the universe is currently structured that don't necessarily even require the idea of an aether. The only reason this theory of the "aether" is even still around is because of how much we don't really understand yet. Thus, it is no less a valid theory than the zero point field at this point.

I thought we already had evidence that the zero point field was real and that governments were experimenting with ways to tap into it as an infinite source of energy.

If we could manipulate that source, we could travel to other planets and stars instantaneously with "zero point drives". We could instantly teleport to other locations in the universe by manipulating this "substrate" that permeates everything. It would give us faster than light travel. Even though it wouldn't necessarily involve a physical object traveling through normal space/time from point A to point B.


[edit on 3-7-2009 by BlasteR]

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 12:47 AM

Originally posted by Gorman91
Aether, how you describe it, would be visible. You are describing it as a universally present item that allows light to propagate through it. This means that it should be seen. If it cannot be seen, light could not propagate through it. Dark matter is different. It is clouds in the vacuum of space which bend space time just like the air you breathe does.

I haven't described it. Why would it be visible? that's absurd. I can't see air, yet light propagates through it. We do not have a complete picture of quantum physics or particle physics. You are assuming we have this light thing all worked out. It's irrelevant to the Aether, what if the Aether is this probability field? The quantum universe is described as a permeating foam of probability. There too many unknowns.
I can only rely on experimental data.

Explain the Aether experiments that do detect a frame of reference? what is it that is giving these results? They are definitely not null as is often proclaimed by the relativists.

Proof of a black hole?

The only way the above image is possible is to have constant input of matter. Constant input. A star cannot input, it can only output. Unless, of course, you can find a star with a line up of planets heading into it going for many many light years. That jet is many light years out. This is not possible with normal stars. Only something so strong that it sucks of matter and shoots it out at the poles can do that.

That makes absolutely no sense. Only something that sucks that much can spit it out at the poles?
Show me the controlled experiment that confirms this hypothesis.

Stars can input, cosmic dust can fall into the sun, backstreaming electrons flow into the sun. But it has nothing to do with black holes or the picture.

Jets where never predicted by black hole theory, an ad hoc was put in place using an accretion disc. An accretion disc that excretes no less.
First nothing not even light could escape, then they jettison matter at near light speed. Recently they been claimed to be spewing water vapor and even more recently even claims that they push matter back!

There is no black hole in that picture.

Perhaps you should talk with our resident black hole slayer - Stephen Crothers who proves mathematically they cannot exist. He does post here from time to time.

The effects observed in your picture can be replicated in the lab using properties of plasma physics. No mythical forces required.
Plasma experiment recreates (burping) astrophysical jets

The only way you say! A man with only a hammer sees everything as a nail.
Or only something that sucks like that can burp like that.

It's more in line with plasma cosmology than BB cosmology. This is what the EU team has to say about that particular that particular finding.

Yes, jets shoot out of the poles because it is dominated by electromagnetic forces and not gravity. Thanks for supporting PC.

Black holes are more likely plasmoids. A dense plasma focus device can replicate all of the qualities of black holes, X-rays, gamma rays and synchrotron radiation. Bostick even replicated rotating spiral galaxies with plasma focus devices in the lab. Peratt has simulated galactic structure that match the rotation curves very well using only known laws of physics. No magic fairy dust needed. My reasoning is based on experimental evidence. Not so with black holes.

On the other hand, galaxies driven only by gravity fail unless they tweak the models with invented forces. Not just a little tweak either, but the assumptions require 96% of the universe to be made of this stuff. because there isn't enough mass to do the job.

Gravity is not the dominate force in the universe.

I can't watch the videos atm. I'm not interested in tv programmes. I want the scientific papers. Scientific method remember. You tube videos and tabloid newspapers are not valid scientific evidence. I want the data from the experiments.

Fusion has nothing to do with black holes or spacetime.

And once again, this ITER disproves what you've been saying about plasma and space time distortion.

How so? you make statements like that but do not explain them. I don't think I've actually said anything about plasma until now.

Let me ask. If the distortion of space time is an illusion of plasma, why is it not seen in ITER?

Because it's not an illusion of plasma, where did you get that from? It's very frustrating arguing with someone who cannot comprehend what he's trying to deny.

If the Aether is entrained with planetary bodies, this can account for the bending of light around planetary bodies. There's suggestive evidence that the Aether exists through experimentation, it can account for all the relativistic effects including the sagnac effect and time dilation.

Do I know for sure it exists? no. You on the other hand a quite confident that the mythical forces invented to prop up a broken theory are as real as any other. That is called faith, not science.

Show me the controlled experiments.

Show me how nothing can be warped by mass? I see you still ignore the scientific papers I presented would you like some more? Have you looked at them?

I'm beginning to get a little bored of this, I like scientific debate, but I'm not getting any science from you. like I said it's like arguing with the religious. They too cannot present any evidence in the form of controlled experiments.

The thread has been derailed enough. CYA.

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:07 AM
reply to post by squiz

You can see air. Look up. it's blue. That's air.

If the aether is the quantum field, it still would not make sense. Because then the aether would be a kind of spread out singularity. A thing at one place, and also everywhere. God, in essence, to some extent, just not sentient. That, I'm afraid, is not possible. It is simply a blank space. Nothing is there. Time space itself is just how humans can visualize it.

The videos of space time draw them in 2d planes and other things. But this is just to help you. This is not what it is. It's difficult to imagine Gravity on this field. It's more accurately a whirlpool existing in every possible degree around a center point. It is not 2d nor is it planar, but it is more around the equator due to spinning.

And we do have light pretty much worked out. Experiments on light have almost concluded. We know experiment applications for light. The item itself is throughly researched and all exploration to what it is has pretty much ended.

What do you mean by a frame of reference?

As to black holes, you can't observe it, so we use indirect observation. It works simple as that.

Black holes, as they were originally imagined, were not pictured spinning. Now we know they do. This is something called ADVANCING research. We first thought the atom completely different then it was. Because we've changed our vision, does that mean they don't exist? because that's what your telling me. They changed the model, so therefore it does not exist?

The jets are from the poles. When so much is sucked in, not all can get there. It's like a traffic jam. That which cannot reach the event horizon reaches the poles and flings off to space. Most of the matter does this. it spits it out of the ergosphere.

If you don;t watch the videos by actual scientists, or read the link to the forum, then how can I provide evidence? You are selectively denying evidence against you.

Explain to me how it is possible to debate someone who throws out the evidence?

I looked at yours. It is invalid because of what I explained.

If aether exists, it allows light to propagate. That means light is going through it and being affected through it. It should therefore be seen, just like any gas or other time. but it is not.

If this aether exists, every single item going out to deep space should get so cloudy that it should become unsee able. The fact that images so far out are so clear therefore means that even if this aether exists, it's so spread out it's not enough to allow light to propagate.

Anything that allows waves to propagate through it inevitably absorbs the wave's energy and spreads it out. yet light does not.

Light is not absorbed by space. it just keeps going.

And your explanation for the distortion of light near bodies does not work.

if there is enough aether so that it actually distorts light in mass near gravity, then it should be thick enough to block out light from a far enough distance.

Yet it does not.

You are describing something that does not affect light at all, yet spontaneously appears to affect it once it is near a body.

How does this work?

And for the umpteenth time, gravity is not the main force. i know this. Why do you keep bringing this up?

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Gorman91]

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Gorman91]

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Gorman91]

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Gorman91]

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:15 AM
reply to post by squiz

I've often wondered about how so much is assumed about the universe in modern science because of how these kinds of phenomenon are represented mathematically, alone. White dwarfs, magnetars and black holes (just to name a few) are all simple theories. We have not seen direct evidence for any of them. The only reason we even know black holes exist in the first place is because of the X-rays they emit. But there could be other explanations for such radiation that doesn't involve black holes. It just goes to show how widely assumed alot of this "common knowledge" astronomy and cosmology really is.

And it also goes to show how science is, quite simply, a representation of what we think we know about the universe at any one time. Mainstream thinking is turned on its head so often that it proves no scientist really understands the universe. We don't even know if some of our most basic scientific principles are correct.. (Gravity, electromagnetism, time, light, etc.) Everything has to be observed indirectly and then assumptions made about the things we can't observe directly based on those indirect observations.. But still, alot of these theories are talked about in acadamea like they're fact when we really have no idea.

And then the "scientists" attack things like the paranormal and claim them as being false without actually doing the research, themselves to prove or disprove the phenomenon one way or the other. All they do is say "there is not enough scientific evidence to suggest it is real". Then, when people claim to catch significant paranormal activity on video or otherwise, they say "this evidence is not valid because it is not scientific and was not captured under controlled conditions". But the only reason a lack of scientific information exists is because they refuse to do the research. You can't make assumptions about phenomenon you haven't even studied yet. But mainstream science does it all the time..

No matter how complicated you, personally, view the universe, there are always going to be aspects of it which beings like us simply aren't capable of grasping at the most fundamental level of human understanding. Science just represents an effort to close this knowledge gap.

For example, it isn't even possible for anyone to really understand how vast the observable universe is (at least based on the images in the hubble deep field). Numbers do it no justice. People say "Wow, that's big" but noone really comprehends how immense and complex the universe really is as a vast system of forces and interactions. I don't think it's even possible for people to grasp that kind of immensity. Our brains just aren't designed to process that kind of information.


[edit on 3-7-2009 by BlasteR]

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:18 AM
reply to post by Arbitrageur and Blaster

What a relief, these points are valid. I'll will read the link about the cold fusion stuff later. Thanks.
I hope my last post explains a little more on my position with black holes, but you have to remember all the evidence is based on the observations around the singularity in question. No one has ever seen a black hole.
The assumption are derived because gravity is assumed to be the king. And some faulty math (that I don't understand very well) but I get the basics, thanks to Stephen Crothers.

There's is no physical object at the heart of a hurricane. That's probably not a very good analogy but I think you see what I mean.

They are gearing up for the first look at an event horizon, so I may be proven wrong. My prediction is they'll find a torus shaped ring of plasma.
So we'll see.

As for the Aether, I don't know either. It's not really necessary for my picture of the universe as I said. I was just defending the idea as a possibility. I'm tired of hearing the same thing over and over that it was falsified by the Michelson Morley experiment. It's a lie.

And yeah, what's so different than the zero point field, higgs field, dark energy etc.. I would like to know what is happening in those experiments that show absolute motion. I don't deny relativity. But space time just does not compute. The Aether or whatever it is, can explain relativity.

I don't know.

Especially when you look deeply into the history of the science you can shed more light on how the conclusion were made. Einstein threw away the scientific method, and tried to explain everything with math alone. Others have followed. Now we have a theoretical universe that does not conform with observation.

I think science is far to quick to dismiss sometimes and can throw away important pieces of the puzzle that may take generations to get back. This is my main reason for defending not the Aether but the possibility of an Aether.

Thank you both, my faith in ATS is restored. I always thought this was the site for free thought, still true for the most part.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by squiz]

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:20 AM
reply to post by BlasteR

Well I seem to be able to.

The thing is, when you have a supercomputer that can have programmed into it the laws of the universe, you do not need to directly see it all the time.

There's just some things that you never have to see to know.

If you know a ball bounces off a wall, then a computer can simulate what happens when the wall hits at slow downed times.

I once went to a tour of a supercomputer on Staten Island at CUNY. They were simulating things ranging from humming bird wings to fire balls, to traffic. All of which were using laws and plotting out data that, when compared to the real world, were virtually correct in every way.

The fallacy of humanity is to think that a computer can never match a human's intellect. Not true. Once the laws are in, it's just a matter of pressing the button.

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:22 AM
reply to post by squiz

Hurricanes are ruled by the winds and temperatures around them and are some thousands of times smaller from stars and black holes.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Gorman91]

And even if it was plasma, there would still be space-time distortions. Plasma is hot mass.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Gorman91]

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:35 AM
reply to post by Gorman91

It's a analogy dude, sheesh. And I wouldn't be so sure about that. Or anything else you've stated.

"Plasma is Hot mass"

oh my, see what I'm dealing with?

[edit on 3-7-2009 by squiz]

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 02:08 AM
Enough Offtopicness, Too

Gorman91, squiz, I beg you: enough!

Gorman91, squiz is a man on a mission. His only interest is in promoting electric-universe theory. His 'science' is pure fantasy, but he's had years of experience confounding trusting souls with illogic and scientific paradox. He believes he is right, he is a master of obfuscation and he will never give up. Please stop the offtopic argument, because he will not.

Squiz, isn't there one discussion in this subforum that you will leave in peace? Some of us are actually interested in the thread topic, you know; some of us have actually more than one interest in life. We don't want every discussion to be brought back to an argument about your favourite theory. So give it a break, will you? Just for once?

Lasheic, thank you and a tip of my hat to you for being such a voice of sanity on this thread. I fully endorse everything you say in your posts.

Yes, I know I'm not a moderator. Just saying my piece.

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 03:01 AM
reply to post by Astyanax

Yeah, I can't believe that my reply to the OP and someone thinking otherwise - that all this is nothing but hype got buried

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 03:10 AM
I'm so happy, finally it's proven that the speed of light CAN indeed be breakable.

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 03:41 AM
reply to post by squiz

The big bang, Black holes, Dark matter, Nuetron stars that defy well known laws of physics


These phenomena don't defy the laws of physics. They were predicted by the laws of physics... and some later confirmed or suggested by new evidence coming in as our data gathering tools diversify and improve. Now, certain conditions around or within these phenomena operate on scales of energy so vast that our understanding of the laws of physics breaks down. This is understandable because, as said before, our understanding of physics is still very incomplete. Newton's mechanics cannot predict the orbit of Venus. Einstein's Relativity doesn't reconcile with Quantum Mechanics.

This doesn't mean those theories we have are complete bunk and should be scrapped... it only means that our current understanding is incomplete. We do not have a comprehensive understanding of how the universe operates along all scales - from particles to galaxy clusters and beyond.

I mentioned earlier in the thread that Evolution did not start with Darwin - but had been postulated by sages and philosophers for several millenia. The basic components of evolution were known well before Darwin's time. We knew we likely descended from less complex life or basal forms due to the similarities and differences in morphology that Linnean Taxonomy highlighted via it's classification. We knew about Natural Selection. We knew organisms produced offspring which varied. We knew about Extinction. Each of the various subjects pertaining to the mystery had been at one time or another picked up, extrapolated, and then fell out of favor as other postulations or configurations of the observations gained prominence through observation - or never gained prominence outside of their originating nations due to cumbersome limitations on communications imposed by the technology or politics of their days.

Darwin was the first to really postulate and identify natural selection as the key shaper of Evolution - replacing the then popular Lamarkian Evolutionary model. Darwin's theory had two major problems in it's day though. We needed to find examples of the predicted transitional fossils, and the true lynchpin - we needed to find a mechanism for modifiable information to be passed on from parents to offspring. Both conditions predicted by Darwin were discovered within his lifetime in the form of Archeopteryx and Gregor Mendel's discovery of genetics.

Much improvement has been made to the theory as new evidence was discovered - such as Genetic Drift and Punctuated Equilibrium. However, these were just clarifications. The core of the theory still holds true - and it has become the backbone of all fields of biology which tied previously unrelated fields together - such as paleontology and germ theory under a comprehensive whole.

Our current understanding of physics is in a somewhat similar position. Just because the laws of physics break down under certain extreme conditions doesn't invalidate what we know about physics - it merely suggests that we're missing key quantities of information needed to explain these apparent breakdowns. As of yet, without a comprehensive theory of everything, we're stuck trying to fill in the gaps with new theories based on observable evidence.

You mentioned Dark Matter being postulated and not observed. This is true, and Dark Matter is still hypothetical. Yet it's the conclusion we've come to based on all the data and evidence we currently have at our disposal. Much like the "information" Darwin knew must exist - but not in what form. The information that Mendel quantified, but couldn't identify with genetics. The information we now know as DNA and RNA, which has been discovered and substantiates the prediction made based on the evidence.

Dark Matter is thus far the most comprehensive prediction based on all available evidence. We may find that Dark Matter as postulated may not exist... but that doesn't mean that there isn't something we've merely misidentified out there creating the evidence, the observations, we see - and that something will have to eventually balance the mathematical equations which Dark Matter currently does.

Just because you can't hold it in your hand and throw it against the wall, figuratively speaking, doesn't mean we're impotent to it's detection. Imagine a puzzle that you're putting together. You can't tell by looking at the half completed puzzle what shape a piece two rows in will look like. Does this mean you can never figure out what it looks like without actually finding that pieces and observing it? No. In fact, that piece can be lost forever and you'll still know pretty much exactly what it looks like by observing the edges of the puzzle pieces that would have surrounded it.

The truth is it is not a picture of a photon.

No... a picture is not the truth. It is evidence. It is a piece of data. How can you be sure that the data is accurate? Set up a system of controls and make sure that your method is reproducible by others. Give them access to your notes and your observations for criticism. While not perfect, this greatly increases the probability that the data is accurate.

So unless you have a valid criticism regarding faulty controls to the experiment or bias in reception to the scientific literature and beyond - the probability of the data being accurate is greater than your (thus far) baseless out of hand rejection.

I accept the fact that it may exist.

Science and scientists as a whole accept that anything and everything possible under infinity may exist and be true. It's possible that a conscious moon rock could hurtle itself down from the sky and whack you in the head - splitting it open and releasing Hubbard's body thetans he says are in there, which then decide to run for European parliament positions.

It is philisophically possible.

Is it in any way probable? Hardly, based on our understanding of how the universe operates. The chances of that occurring and being true are so minuscule that can justifiably be considered impossible.

So you can believe in aether if you want, because it may be somehow possible - but the probabilities are so minute at this point that criticism towards your belief are well justified as it does not hold the weight of evidence that observations of reality provide.

All the evidence though is very, very ordinary and only exists mathematically, not experimentally.

As I understand it, Mathematics supersedes scientific theories and is the only realm of human thought in which "Proof" really applies due to it's deductive line of reasoning rather than inductive reasoning since mathematics deals with axioms we establish as true beforehand, whereas science deals with discovering unknowns and levels of certainty. To prove something in science, is to destroy science as an institution altogether. Whereas, we can establish that a singular unit is one - and to add another singular unit makes two.

Ultimately, mathematics supersedes science because if all necessary variables are accounted for for every single particulate in the universe - you -COULD- run a perfect certain simulation to prove anything in reality you wanted. However, this will likely never be feasible for humanity, and if I'm not mistaken, the amount of energy it would require to run such a perfect simulation would require more energy than the universe contains.

I think nature will always keep a few secrets to itself.

You're anthropomorphizing.... and I'm out of space for this post. No biggie, as most of what's left is just back and forth gainsay or already addressed anyhow.

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 03:45 AM

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by mnemeth1

Hod DID probe B not prove it?

Well, they tried to cull out the expected anomalies in the sensor data and they were unable to.

Did you read the final reports issued by the team?

They spent years trying to massage the data to get it to say what they wanted it to say but were unable to.

The "Gravity Probe B" current status is reported on their website here.

This is a quote from that page. The home page. Right up front. The first thing you see. You don't have to read the entire report to find out what they are reporting.

The latest data analysis indicates observation of Frame-Dragging.

There is further work to do to continue to reduce the error. They are never-the-less confident that the data does show Frame-Dragging.

This is just about the last of Einstein's Relativity-based predictions to be demonstrated to be correct.

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Gorman91
You still haven't explained why probe B failed

It didn't fail. Please review their website here

And you still can't explain atomic clocks

I can. Exactly where is the difficulty you have understanding them?

[edit on 3/7/2009 by rnaa]

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in