It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Scientists Make Radio Waves Travel Faster Than Light

page: 4
71
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted 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!


He didn't "prove" anything.

He made a computer do what he wanted it to based on physics that don't have a basis in reality.

I can make computer models of flying monkeys, that doesn't mean they exist.




posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Time dilation kind of is frame dragging.



Its also "kind of" falsified by the fact that gravity probe B failed to detect it along with every other satellite that has attempted to prove it.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


A computer can have rules observed from the sky imputed into itself.

Sorry, but a computer can be the universe if the rules are programmed.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


It's the phenomena known as gravitational lensing in astronomy.

~~~

Discussing the OP: doesn't this tie into group velocity vs. phase velocity? There is no upper limit inferred on phase velocity, but the "information" is carried via the group velocity.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Hod DID probe B not prove it?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


A computer can have rules observed from the sky imputed into itself.

Sorry, but a computer can be the universe if the rules are programmed.



explain this:
1893611337431046394-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com...

Physicists have had to use something called "micro" lensing to explain it.

Total load of complete and utter rubbish.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Very nice topic, remember a theory is just a well substantiated and accepted explanation of a principle. So theories can very well be broken or incorrect or can even have more rules to it.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by fordrew]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You're going to have to explain what I'm looking at, how it disproves anything, and why you are right from it.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Google is asking to download the image
hope you dont mind I posted it






posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You're going to have to explain what I'm looking at, how it disproves anything, and why you are right from it.


Its called a gravitational lens.

Supposedly that is one quasar lensed into 4 images of the same quasar.

The points of light are supposed to be oblong and circular around the center of the galaxy.

Instead they are point like, change in brightness, rotate, and appear to be interacting with the galactic core.

There is no way in living heckfire that image is of ONE quasar lensed into FOUR images of the same quasar.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
EDIT

nevermind for now


let me read your infor first.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


What if there is a cloud of dark matter or something blocking the view. Like how you'll see more than one sun through some kinds of prison.


It doesn't necessarily mean anyone is right and anyone is wrong.


Now, onto probe B, how is it wrong. From what I read is was successful enough.

Any kind of distortion would be enough to prove it. The Earth shouldn't have that big of a distortion in space time, but it should be there. Equipment these days simply doesn't have errors like that unless they are so small they are considered insignificant and part of background radiation.

In addition, none of this yet explains why so many places do show the lensing, and therefore frame distortions.

In order for you to be right, you have to explain this, and provide an alternative. And anything of this being the result of Aether would indicating a slowing down force through the medium. So you have to explain why this is only seen in light.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Gorman91]

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
How about instantaneous.
The end of a push rod has an instantaneous response.
Cause the rod is solid.
The use of an incompressible fluid will also provide the instantaneous response.
Thus the solid push rod can be replaced by a tube full of liquid.

Now the radio wave is not instantaneous.
However making a solid path or incompressible radio path from
one place to another, you have instantaneous messaging.

Something like twitter that stole the IM idea of AOL and YAHOO and
MSN and made a success story out of it. What a bunch of losers,
good luck twitter.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91

In order for you to be right, you have to explain this, and provide an alternative.



No, actually I don't.

I just have to prove Einstein's nonsense is wrong.

However I will provide an alternative model if you wish:

Halton Arp, famous for the Arp Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, has put forth explainations for the origins of quasars.

quasars

We now know the wolf effect of optical correlation could be responsible for the observed red shifts.

optical correlation

And we also have a mechanism for the observed rotational velocities and origins of the power source for such objects.

advances



All steady state, no dark matter or black holes required.



[edit on 30-6-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



But I don't get out this disproves anything.


Me neither, and I think FTL is possible. I mentioned my brother is a physicist earlier. We debate often. If you are travelling near the speed of light and you project light forward it should be going FTL to a 3rd stationary observer. He disagrees because of Relativity. So I counter with two light beams travelling toward one another. They are both travelling at the speed of light, so an observer on one beam should observe the other beam at 2x the speed of light, but he counters with a lot of stuff I don't understand. Still, the convergence speed would be 2x the speed of light to either observer or a third stationary observer!

My final argument is that I cannot throw a baseball 100 mph, but in my car travelling 50 mph, I can easily throw a baseball over 100 mph. Relativity does not affect the outcome on the baseball, so why light?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


But not all of that is caused by that is solely from quasars.

Some come from eons in the early stages of the universe.

And others have no apparent source of bending the image.

Quasars are not the be all and end all on this phenomenon. Some display the affect over many galaxies, far enough to be out of the affect of any star.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


But not all of that is caused by that is solely from quasars.

Some come from eons in the early stages of the universe.

And others have no apparent source of bending the image.

Quasars are not the be all and end all on this phenomenon. Some display the affect over many galaxies, far enough to be out of the affect of any star.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Gorman91]


The image clearly disproves red shift = distance. And I got a lot more where that came from.

That's all I need to disprove.

With that alone the big bang goes to the scrap heap along with all the other nonsense of expanding space the current cosmological models are based on.

If red shift does not equal distance, then all of modern cosmology is wrong.

Everything.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I thought Big Bang was out the window years ago. I don't remember the details, but I read several popular opinions that it had failed in many aspects.

I remember an elementary observation I had years ago. If there was a Big Bang, shouldn't everything be moving "away" from everything else. How do we have things that are colliding, or accelerating towards one another?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I thought Big Bang was out the window years ago. I don't remember the details, but I read several popular opinions that it had failed in many aspects.

I remember an elementary observation I had years ago. If there was a Big Bang, shouldn't everything be moving "away" from everything else. How do we have things that are colliding, or accelerating towards one another?


Well our friendly theoretical physicists have dreamed up solutions to those issues, but here's a whole host of issues they can't explain about the big bang:

Lerner E, Progress in New Cosmologies: Beyond the Big Bang 1993



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join