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.

 

UQ researchers break the law - of physics

page: 2
37
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TLomon
 


That is kind of what I was getting at. If they use this type of physics to come up with their global warming theory could this punch holes in it ? Seems like it may, if it's used that is.




posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Physics is an ever changing thing, and new discoveries are made every day.. Thats why its based on the idea of theorys not hard concrete facts.. the THEORY of relativity is not a law anymore than grass is pink,, if it where, it would be fact! One thing I will say about physicist is that they dont really like to use the term THEORY because it points leads one to believe that it inst true(the dilema) The thing is, relativity can't be totally proven or dis proven with our curent technology and understanding of the underlying universe yet we are 99% sure that is how things work. therefore it will remain only a theory that we know is basically fact... But hell thats science for ya.. everytime you open your mouth someone will bitch haha. And every time we think we have it.. theres another layer beneath the prior. It will be intresting to see how this turns out though



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Strictsum
 


Scientists do constantly re-examine what they know. The science game is a pretty cut through business and there are two main ways to get ahead: prove something new, or disprove something. Scientists may be a bit arrogant, but their views don't go unchallenged, they're constantly facing opposition from other equally arrogant scientists.

That's not to say the system's perfect, but it does encourage a certain amount of thoroughness. If you publish something, you can bet there's going to be about a 100 guys who are going to try and poke holes in what you've done, so you better be damn sure it's well argued.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strictsum
Doesn't this also mean they could be wrong about many many other things.

If they were wrong about this and people have assumed it correct for years.

What else are they wrong about?


Although anything is possible, it's doubtful. It's really not that they were wrong, their work was expanded upon and made more accurate.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TLomon
Interesting article. Very good find. Ok, in laymen's terms... Previous scientific equations for fractal physics gave equal value to items we know are not the same.

Their new equation accurately (according to the scientists) measures differences between two outcomes, and possible speed variances.

What this means is a way to better predict disease epidemics spreading, biotoxin distribution, etc.

To sum it up, fractal physics is the study of patterns in chaos. They came up with a better formula to develop a more accurate pattern.

wow thanks for the info, fascinating stuff.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Humans, with our heads held high with our supposed knowledge and super intelligence are merely as babes in toyland.

We have hardly scratched the surface of what really is.

We know just enough to destroy our earth and it's people.

Such a pity.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TLomon


Technically no, since global warming is a myth perpetuated by politicans with their own agendas. However, it should be useful for determining the effects of climate change.



With Respect to your understanding,

Where does all the heat go that is liberated from the fossil fuels, that was energy originally captured and converted from heat from the sun?

In addition how does the heat thus liberated, or allowed into the atmosphere then manage to propgate into space as it did before man started adding to the levels of natural greenhouse gas levels?

(taking the sun and its variance etc out of the system, just looking at the above, would you say we have HAD NO effect at all?, if so please explain the above)

I dont pretend to know enough about the math about this, but enough about systems and environmental engineering to know some things...

Seems a very very interesting read as if the basic premise of it is correct we could use this eventually to even map out strategies and also group, and maybe one day on a thought/emotion/responce level psychology.

Kind Regards

Elf.

[edit on 6-7-2009 by MischeviousElf]

[edit on 6-7-2009 by MischeviousElf]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Strictsum
Doesn't this also mean they could be wrong about many many other things.

If they were wrong about this and people have assumed it correct for years.

What else are they wrong about?


Although anything is possible, it's doubtful. It's really not that they were wrong, their work was expanded upon and made more accurate.


I disagree to some extent. I'm quite sure that there are many 'truths and/or assumptions' taken for granted today that our descendents will find either horrifying or laughable; just as we do with some of the 'science' of yester years.

Humans have been completely wrong in the past and we can assume that we are better today, but we are going to be completely wrong in many areas today as viewed through tomorrow's eyes.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by georgejetson
 


That may be true for new ideas and theories but what about long held beliefs. Ones that have already been through the critiques of their day. People don't even consider they could be incorrect anymore. I would be willing to bet you a whole penny that 10% of what is known to be "fact" is incorrect and will be proven to be so one day. Some of this 10% will change the world as we know it.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
I suggest that the nomenclature "laws of physics" should be changed to "speculated assumptions".



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybobh3

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Strictsum
Doesn't this also mean they could be wrong about many many other things.

If they were wrong about this and people have assumed it correct for years.

What else are they wrong about?


Although anything is possible, it's doubtful. It's really not that they were wrong, their work was expanded upon and made more accurate.


I disagree to some extent. I'm quite sure that there are many 'truths and/or assumptions' taken for granted today that our descendents will find either horrifying or laughable; just as we do with some of the 'science' of yester years.

Humans have been completely wrong in the past and we can assume that we are better today, but we are going to be completely wrong in many areas today as viewed through tomorrow's eyes.


Much of what we understand in science today is based on Scientific Theories. A scientific theory is defined as:

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

Do we know everything? NO of course not.
Do I think that many of our current theories will be dead wrong. NO as they've been proven. I do think they will be refined quite a bit in the future however.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
This sounds like they are borrowing some of Rupert Sheldrake and Terence Mckenna's concepts.


Maybe soon the morphic field theory will go mainstream.


Hi Exuberant1...

As you know I greatly respect your opinions but I really don't see how you're getting to this from the article posted. Care to elucidate?



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Redpillblues
Some would say that on 911 the rules of physics were broke 3 times...


Others know how to read and bought a copy of Popular Mechanics.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I am just waiting for the Science world as we know it, to turn on its head after this news as a lot of long held theories have indeed been based upon the now old outdated fractal one.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Interesting article find OP
Don't have time to deal with this right now but will be back


Originally posted by Strictsum
What else are they wrong about?


What I spotted right away was this..



Dr Tony Roberts and PhD student Christophe P. Haynes, from the School of Maths and Physics, showed the fractal-Einstein and Alexander-Orbach laws can fail in some instances, and have derived a new law to replace them.


Google " Einstein was wrong" Seems a lot of physicists, especially in the quantum world, are finding the old laws don't hold

Also NASA after the tether incident makes this bold statement

EARLY FINDINGS FROM TETHERED SATELLITE MISSION
POINT TO REVAMPING OF SPACE PHYSICS THEORIES
www.nasa.gov...

Oh well...

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one" Albert Einstein



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


Star and flag!

This is far beyond my paygrade as well unfortunately! But it just goes to show you what I've always believed, that the various scientific "laws" we have today are only of a fleeting nature. We don't know nearly enough to call anything a "law". What's the old saying? "As a human race from the beginning of time, we've only known 0.0002% of everything there is to know". (Or something to that tune.)

We don't even know what's at the bottom of our oceans, how can we know how the universe works?


Cool find!



Peace,
FK



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TLomon
Interesting article. Very good find. Ok, in laymen's terms... Previous scientific equations for fractal physics gave equal value to items we know are not the same.

Their new equation accurately (according to the scientists) measures differences between two outcomes, and possible speed variances.

What this means is a way to better predict disease epidemics spreading, biotoxin distribution, etc.

To sum it up, fractal physics is the study of patterns in chaos. They came up with a better formula to develop a more accurate pattern.





posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that location and speed of an object CANNOT be known at the same time. If we did, we can predict the future of every particle and thus THE FUTURE. Even if the particle is at absolute zero (0 velocity and fixed location), we cannot see the actual particle (BEC).

These are "models" for diffusion of particles which are only ESTIMATES. Apparently, we think we can foresee the future when nature does not want us to.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Everyone just remember that "there is no spoon" and you will be able to solve all of life's problems.

Good Find, I love this kinda stuff



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by die_another_day
 




The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that location and speed of an object CANNOT be known at the same time.


If object = quantum particle, then yes, I completely agree.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join