Scientists Make Radio Waves Travel Faster Than Light , page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 71 times


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 02:01 PM by mnemeth1
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by mnemeth1


There's no Aether. This is such a rub burned theory.

There are areas of space with waves in them, but they are spreading out.

Until we can learn to harvest the vast energy needed to quantum tunnel something large, or use gravity to manipulate space time, we are stuck at 3x10^8 m/s

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Gorman91]


I tend to disagree.

Common sense logic tells us that waves must have a medium to propagate through.

An "aether" of the type Miller postulated doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

Einstein's explanation for light is a joke.


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 02:03 PM by warrenb
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by mnemeth1


There's no Aether. This is such a rub burned theory.

There are areas of space with waves in them, but they are spreading out.

Until we can learn to harvest the vast energy needed to quantum tunnel something large, or use gravity to manipulate space time, we are stuck at 3x10^8 m/s

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Gorman91]


so your telling the scientists (like mnemeth1) that his studies/observations are wrong?
Are you a scientist?


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 02:04 PM by Gorman91
reply to post by mnemeth1


There are 2 different kinds of waves. Volume ones and non volume ones. They are different and act differently too.

Logic tells us so, but we are dealing with things that do not obey logic. Hence quantum, theory.

If there was an Aether, you would see planets slowing down and leaving trails behind them as they move through it. You would also hear the sun. But you can't. Because sound cannot move though the vacuum.

The space time continuum is not an Aether. It obeys no properties of a medium.

reply to post by warrenb


I'm telling it as it is, and for which many theories prove right.


[edit on 30-6-2009 by Gorman91]



reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 02:06 PM by warrenb
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by mnemeth1


There are 2 different kinds of waves. Volume ones and non volume ones. They are different and act differently too.

Logic tells us so, but we are dealing with things that do not obey logic. Hence quantum, theory.

If there was an Aether, you would see planets slowing down and leaving trails behind them as they move through it. You would also hear the sun. But you can't. Because sound cannot move though the vacuum.

The space time continuum is not an Aether. It obeys no properties of a medium.


why can't sound move through the vacuum?
it is nothing but a wave of energy is it not?


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 02:09 PM by Gorman91
reply to post by warrenb


A sound wave is the compression of matter in an up and down fashion as a result of energy being passed in a wave.

A light wave is energy captured by the item carrying it itself.

They are different concepts. One passes energy on until it is spread out. The other carries the energy itself.

It's like comparing a cow crossing a bridge to a cow hitting a wall. The cow on the bridge can move through what a cow on a wall cannot because it has legs to get there. The other cow is blocked, like sound is with a vacuum.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Gorman91]


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 02:10 PM by mnemeth1
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by mnemeth1


There are 2 different kinds of waves. Volume ones and non volume ones. They are different and act differently too.

Logic tells us so, but we are dealing with things that do not obey logic. Hence quantum, theory.

If there was an Aether, you would see planets slowing down and leaving trails behind them as they move through it. You would also hear the sun. But you can't. Because sound cannot move though the vacuum.

The space time continuum is not an Aether. It obeys no properties of a medium.


Logic tells me that there are no things that don't obey logic.

Here's an example of a theory that well explains light without the need for a lot of theoretical quantum rubbish.

www.glafreniere.com...

I don't believe anything that can't be proven in a laboratory, so Einstein's hypotheticals leave a horribly bad taste in my mouth. They ignore reality in favor of theory.

Einstein's theories are blatantly wrong just based on the notion that nothing can propagate at a speed faster than light, including gravity.

We know that the sun is a moving target in space and in order for the planets to maintain their orbit around the sun, they have to know well in advance of the speed of light where the suns location is at any given moment.

If the earth received gravitational information on the suns location at the speed of light, it would degenerate in its orbit over the course of less than a thousand years.

The mathematical proof of this can be found here:

Tom Van Flandern and J.P. Vigier, published in Foundations of Physics 32:1031-1068 (2002)
www.metaresearch.org...







[edit on 30-6-2009 by mnemeth1]


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 02:14 PM by Gorman91
reply to post by mnemeth1


Because information of gravity is going at the speed of light, the Earth is not.

How could the Earth need to know in advance when it is not going faster than light? It travels 18 miles a second or something like that. It does not travel faster than the speed of light.

Gravity gets the path right far in advance.


In addition, why is the universe still moving? With an Aether, it should have stalled due to resistance and stopped by now.


And of course, why even have a photon then? The photon is completely redundant. with an Aether

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Gorman91]


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 02:21 PM by warrenb
reply to post by Gorman91


your basing all this on theories of theories

maybe you need some new science?

www.thunderbolts.info...



reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 02:22 PM by mnemeth1
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by mnemeth1


Because information of gravity is going at the speed of light, the Earth is not.

How could the Earth need to know in advance when it is not going faster than light? It travels 18 miles a second or something like that. It does not travel faster than the speed of light.

Gravity gets the path right far in advance.


In addition, why is the universe still moving? With an Aether, it should have stalled due to resistance and stopped by now.


And of course, why even have a photon then? The photon is completely redundant. with an Aether

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Gorman91]


You're making all sorts of assumptions that have no proof behind any of them.

examples:

aether must provide resistance

gravity is the only force available in space

"photons" are really what we think they are

gravity is a curvature of space

space is expanding

All of them are assumptions and none of them have laboratory proof backing them.


[edit on 30-6-2009 by mnemeth1]


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 02:30 PM by Gorman91

aether must provide resistance


A medium must slow other things passing through it down or it does not exist. If it doesn't slow it down, there is nothing there. It is a vacuum.

Logically of course






gravity is the only force available in space


No. I never said that and this is not true. In space, all forces still work except for ones based on a medium. You can't be pushed by a sound wave, for instance.



"photons" are really what we think they are

Photons are what we think they are because we have countless tests.

In fact we've even taken a very very fast picture of one

focus.aps.org...





gravity is a curvature of space



It is. You see this in space. If you want to say that the bending of light is from light through the medium (as someone else said maybe), you must retract your first statement, as it is obviously having some kind of resistance near matter.





space is expanding


If space wasn't expanding we would not see the redshift. And if that's not true, then how can we use blue shift to know that Andromeda is heading for us?



Aether simply doesn't make logical sense



reply to post by warrenb


What theories based on theories?

As opposed to Aether which has so many holes in it?

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Gorman91]


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 02:39 PM by mnemeth1
Light halos in space can be caused by other effects besides gravitational lensing.

In fact gravitational lensing has so many problems with it I can't even cover them all in a single post. For starters, look here about half way down the page:
sites.google.com...


Gravity is not a curvature of space. This makes no logical sense what-so-ever. How can nothing bend to create a force on something? Gravity as a curvature of space has never been proven in a lab. Gravitational wave detectors have never directly detected a gravitational wave and no satellite has ever been able to prove frame dragging is a real property of space.

GPS satellite clock data can be explained just as easily in a steady state universe as it can using Einstein's warped space, in fact, the calculations for the GPS clocks are simpler in a steady state universe model.

Its all a big lie.


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 02:57 PM by Gorman91
reply to post by mnemeth1


Frame dragging was proven.

The pioneer speed anomaly is probably a result of dust or dark matter. There's crap loads of it in the universe. Why not here?

The rest is too boring because most of it is (or should be) common sense.

Large planets like Jupiter and Saturn's rings have radio signals because there's freaking all kinds of events going on. Turn on your radio during a lightning storm and you'll understand.

Do I really have to go through it all when you can got through your own research?

For instance, what on earth are thy going on about with the cross shaped thing? I don't get what they're trying to prove.



Time is simply not constant.

The sun is different temps because probably there's more hitting it. The surface of the sun is just plasma hydrogen. It is inside that's hotter.

I'm too tired to go on with this stuff that should be common sense.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Gorman91]


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 02:58 PM by mnemeth1
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by mnemeth1


Frame dragging was proven.

The pioneer speed anomaly is probably a result of dust or dark matter. There's crap loads of it in the universe. Why not here?

The rest is too boring because most of it is (or should be) common sense).

Large planets like Jupiter and Saturn's rings have radio signals because there's freaking all kinds of events going on. Turn on your radio during a lightning storm and you'll understand.

Do I really have to go through it all when you can got through your own research?

For instance, what on earth are thy going on about with the cross shaped thing? I don't get what they're trying to prove.




frame dragging has never been proven.


ever.


Gravity probe B was declared a failure in its attempt to prove frame dragging, as were all the other satellite projects that attempted to prove it.



[edit on 30-6-2009 by mnemeth1]



reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 03:02 PM by Gorman91
reply to post by mnemeth1


Then why exactly can you do a bit of time travel at high speeds?


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 03:04 PM by getreadyalready
reply to post by Gorman91


For instance, what on earth are thy going on about with the cross shaped thing? I don't get what they're trying to prove.


If you are talking about "Einstein's Cross" phenomenon for seeing 'around' another heavenly body, then one of my ex-professors mathematically modeled and proved Einstein's theory in this regard. His computer modelling was skewed to the lower right quadrant for some reason that he is still working out, but the theory panned out!

This is the ability of gravity to "bend" light around an object. A star hidden behind another heavenly has a visual effect of a cross around the obstructing body. By modeling this and extrapolating backwards we can "see" the hidden source!

This has simplistic attributes in Astronomy, and more complicated attributes in Physics and Mathematics. Plus it is always a big bump on your resume to confirm any of Einstein's theories!


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 03:07 PM by Gorman91
reply to post by getreadyalready


But I don't get out this disproves anything.



reply to post by mnemeth1


Also, there have been experiments to confirm dilation. Just search it up. Pound–Rebka, Hafele–Keating, etc etc.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Gorman91]


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 03:09 PM by mnemeth1
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by mnemeth1


Then why exactly can you do a bit of time travel at high speeds?



That's not frame dragging.

That's a time dilation problem, which is more easily explained using steady state formulas.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^