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: 5
71
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Oww my brain.

so if the wave propigates spontanously at the other end right away as it does the begining of its travel, would hypotheticaly a line from one side of the universe to the other (ignoreing expantion) be able to talk in real time. or very possibly am i mistaken?




posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


If the big bang isn't real, exactly how can they find massive neutrino waves stretching out so far and dated to that point.

And again, why is the edge of space black?



You still haven't explained why probe B failed

And you essentially just acted like a hypocrite. When you show me that one picture I'm suppose to abandon everything else that proves it, yet when all the other pictures are brought forth disproving you, you are not affected.

Why?

And you still can't explain atomic clocks

Or exactly why gravity information needs to go faster than light to keep Earth in orbit.


You have a lot of explainin to do and you just keep moving past it.


There's nothing you show that definably disproves anything. In fact most of all what you show is compatible with what already is known.

When Item A cannot disprove Item B, but Item B and A are compatible, no rule says they cannot both be true.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


You guys seem to be more knowledgeable on this subject than me, but this one issue keeps getting to me:


Or exactly why gravity information needs to go faster than light to keep Earth in orbit.

The orbit of Earth, or any other body in space is "reactive" to the gravity force on it. Why would it need any advance knowledge (another issue, objects don't have knowledge) of the sun's location?

It seems the sun does whatever suns do, and the planets follow due to the gravitational pull. The orbits are not circular, and this delayed gravity reaction could be part of the reason why. The sun is orbiting the center of the galaxy in a similar fashion. Plus, if something were "steering" the earth and planning its orbit, the information would only have to travel faster than the sun's movement, not its light?!

Just one aspect of this discussion that seems oddly silly and inconsequential to me.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
If the big bang isn't real, exactly how can they find massive neutrino waves stretching out so far and dated to that point.

And again, why is the edge of space black?


We can't see the edge of space, the Hubble deep field shows fully formed galaxies as far back as it can see. I haven't looked at the neutrino wave issue you are commenting on, but I can tell you the neutrino count we see coming from the sun is about half of what we predicted based on the standard model of the sun.


You still haven't explained why probe B failed

And you essentially just acted like a hypocrite. When you show me that one picture I'm suppose to abandon everything else that proves it, yet when all the other pictures are brought forth disproving you, you are not affected.

Why?


Here's the team report on gravity probe B, read it for yourself. Its a failure. They did not prove frame dragging.

einstein.stanford.edu...

"evidence of the frame-dragging effect was inconclusive."

And that's after several years of data massaging and manipulation, much like climate scientists do to prove global warming.


And you still can't explain atomic clocks

Or exactly why gravity information needs to go faster than light to keep Earth in orbit.


Atomic clocks:
'Open Questions in Relativistic Physics' (pp. 81-90), edited by Franco Selleri, published by Apeiron, Montreal (1998)
www.metaresearch.org...

Gravity must propagate faster than light:
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]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Have you heard of "My Big TOE"? It's a book written by Thomas Campbell that explains a theory that encompasses just about everything you can imagine. And he has the credentials to back up the science.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by hardstyleaz]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by hardstyleaz
Have you heard of "My Big TOE"? It's a book written by Thomas Campbell that explains a theory that encompasses just about everything you can imagine. And he has the credentials to back up the science.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by hardstyleaz]


I haven't heard of Campbell, but if his theories involve black holes, warping space, and multiple dimensions, I don't believe them.

The physics of the universe must be the same at all points in space.

This is something modern theory rejects.

I don't believe in any theory that says the physics of the universe is different in different areas of space.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Oh this is good.

Looking more at Gravity Probe B's findings:

einstein.stanford.edu...

This method finds the (unique) trapped field distribution and rotor motion by fitting a theoretical model to the harmonics of high (gyroscope spin) frequency signal.

It appears the team was able to massage the data into a model that shows some effects of frame dragging by layering a theoretical (ie. bullshat) model of gyroscope harmonics on top of the raw data.

This is what they always do. Its the reason why it took them 5 years to do the data analysis because it took them 5 years to come up with a bullshat model of harmonics they could layer on top of the data to make it fit what they predicted it should say.

This kind of nonsense makes me so mad.

The initial findings of the raw data showed wayyyyyyyyy too much noise to prove frame dragging, so they cooked up a theory to explain away the noise.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by hardstyleaz
Have you heard of "My Big TOE"? It's a book written by Thomas Campbell that explains a theory that encompasses just about everything you can imagine. And he has the credentials to back up the science.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by hardstyleaz]


I haven't heard of Campbell, but if his theories involve black holes, warping space, and multiple dimensions, I don't believe them.

The physics of the universe must be the same at all points in space.

This is something modern theory rejects.

I don't believe in any theory that says the physics of the universe is different in different areas of space.



have you ever studied quantum physics?

[edit on 30-6-2009 by hardstyleaz]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Inconclusive. Yea, because the Earth is not big nor a black hole.

It was inconclusive if Mars had water in the 70s, despite obvious evidence. Today it is widely accepted that Mars does occasionally have active water sites.

Science is based up repeated results, not one probe.



And I don't understand these websites you keep showing me which do not show what you are proving.

The fact remains that when one looks at a black hole, it ejects less matter than it absorbs.

How so?

because matter is entering at faster than the speed of light to our relativity, then getting stuck into the drag near the event horizon, where time slows. Then exists less because it takes longer to come out, as time is slow.


Also, why would it matter when Galaxies first started showing up? Most of the universe was in full operation a few million years after the big bang.


Why is altering time in different zones so implausible?

If so, how can lasers be used to make space time alterations today?

www.indiadaily.com...


The inability of you to explain the other images where distortions occur without any quasars or other stuff is still something I'm waiting on.

There's simply too much evidence against you and too little with you.

Why can't we hear the sun?

Why can't things slow down through this aether?


The fact is that time is not constant and goes at different rates. Your inability to accept this, and your inability to prove Aether, is really going to let you down from credibility.




Maybe you can put it in better words, because you simply cannot have aether, and you simply cannot explain the time distortion of black holes.

Until you can explain how something can eject less than it takes in and not be growing, then altering time space is the only answer.

I really want to see the next 15 or so years, because they've got crap loads of things going up to prove this.

Why would these governments spend trillions if there's so little evidence for it?

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
So, anyone debunk this yet? I can't find it on any other news sources, other than the copy cat article linked in the OP.

Moreover, there is no explanation, whatsoever, in this article. None. We're suppose to just take the articles word for it? I think not.

There have been plenty of apparent faster than light devices built, and while they are too complicated to explain here, none of them actually work. There are also plenty of theoretical "faster than light" scenarios, but to my knowledge, nobody has ever created this in a laboratory or seen it in nature.


Something in this article was lost on the cutting room floor, I think.

Sad thing is, most of the ATS users who read this article are now going to be spewing this as "common knowledge" every chance they get, and I have a feeling they will be wrong wrong WRONG, as the facts of this story haven't even come out, and already it seems to be being misrepresented.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I don't think you've taken the time to read any of the material I've posted.

I also think your just randomly throwing out strawman arguments.

If you want to believe that black holes exist, dark matter exists, and pulsars spin around on their axis at thousands of times per second in violation of every known law of physics on this planet, that's your choice.

I for one think its a load of nonsense.



[edit on 30-6-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


Yes I know. In the last few pages of discussion, no one has been able to tell me how it works.

Now I know waves are unique, but still, I have nothing to go on.

reply to post by mnemeth1
 


They obey the laws of physics. to their own relativity they are not breaking anything.

I read through it, but a lot of it is pointing to stuff with no evidence.

Changing of altitude accounts for the clocks? How? The brightest people aren't trained to know how to account for vector alterations? And where does it say they didn't account for it?

Your sources seem to go on too much assumptions.

And you still cannot explain Aether.

If all the universe should logically follow the same rules, why doesn't aether?

You still haven't explained why light has to obey the same wave rules as sound. You still haven't explained why the photon exists if light is like sound.


[edit on 30-6-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


Yes I know. In the last few pages of discussion, no one has been able to tell me how it works.

Now I know waves are unique, but still, I have nothing to go on.

reply to post by mnemeth1
 


They obey the laws of physics. to their own relativity they are not breaking anything.

I read through it, but a lot of it is pointing to stuff with no evidence.

Changing of altitude accounts for the clocks? How? The brightest people aren't trained to know how to account for vector alterations? And where does it say they didn't account for it?

Your sources seem to go on too much assumptions.


You didn't read it, its clear by your posts.

They give a break down of the differences in how Lorentz relativity calculates the clocks compared to special relativity. They aren't assuming anything.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I did read it. They said that there's a distortion from altitude differences.

Still waiting on your answer to everything else.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


Yes I know. In the last few pages of discussion, no one has been able to tell me how it works.

Now I know waves are unique, but still, I have nothing to go on.


That's probably because it doesn't work "faster than light," the way the article depicts it.

Also, waves aren't unique at all. Sorry if that was meant to be ironic, I can't tell, as it's the internets
.


It's also worth point out that the article does not claim that information can travel faster than light -- and that's the whole point.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Extralien
Here we go.. faster than light internet, TV, phone calls.. that would free up a load of materials.. and imagine the communication issues we could have in the search for ET?

You could contain the details of this model so as to ensure a speedy reply


Great find..

Could even go as far as teleportation too.. seeing as information travels on radio waves.. could be on the surface of Mars in milliseconds..

Which makes me think of an odd question.. if you were broken down into information particles and riding a 'faster than light' radio wave, would you need food and water or sleep if you were on a journey to another Galaxy?


No..as you'd be zero's and ones', not flesh and blood.

The only 'food' would be a power source to carry the wave pulse. Speed is one thing, but without amplitude or power, it doesn't mean a lot if the transmission hasn't got the juice to carry the signal the distance.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I did read it. They said that there's a distortion from altitude differences.

Still waiting on your answer to everything else.


I don't have time to respond to all of your strawmen.

Needless to say, we are left with two competing theories of the universe.

One says the universe can be explained entirely through classical physics and known laws of electrodynamics.

The other says 96% of the universe is made out of invisible matter, the universe is actually a gigantic hologram, and black holes that supposedly suck everything in (including light), actually shoot matter out in jets.

I'm sticking with theory number 1.



[edit on 30-6-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Well theory 2 has all credible evidence in pictures, sensors, and experiments that you don't agree on either.

it's really like talking to the worst of creationists. You don't believe the facts, we show you the proof, you don't believe the proof. We show you why the proof is real, you don't believe the reason.

How exactly can one prove you wrong even after all your theories are wrong?


The fact is that CERN, Frances new fusions reactor, and many US projects all work on theory 2, and for now they seem to be right. CERN is finding new discoveries, France is beginning fusions power, and the US is catching up with new tech too.

Where the money is, the truth is.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Well theory 2 has all credible evidence in pictures, sensors, and experiments that you don't agree on either.

it's really like talking to the worst of creationists. You don't believe the facts, we show you the proof, you don't believe the proof. We show you why the proof is real, you don't believe the reason.

How exactly can one prove you wrong even after all your theories are wrong?


The fact is that CERN, Frances new fusions reactor, and many US projects all work on theory 2, and for now they seem to be right. CERN is finding new discoveries, France is beginning fusions power, and the US is catching up with new tech too.

Were the money is, the truth is.


Actually the theory of the big bang was created by a catholic priest as a way to tie science to theology.

Lemaitre

Theoretical physics is not science.

Its taking an observation and then modeling make believe physics around it to try and explain it.

That is not hard science. None of the theories are falsifiable.


[edit on 30-6-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


And a priest began the first research into evolution.

Background is regardless if it is true.

The fact remain theory 2 is plausible and explainable. We have seen pictures of these black holes ejecting less then they suck in. We have seen the evidence of dark matter with Pioneer.

For all you know this Dark matter might just be you aether, but not as you imagined it.



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join