Experiment could prove The Theory of General Relativity wrong...

reply to post by Shark_Feeder


so, the spinning superconductor had current running through it? it also looked like it was levitating like that toy top I never got



it got heavier? so how do we get it to get lighter?

there is always going to be an opposite

positive negative
matter anti matter
white all colors black no colors
superhuman health to the very sickly


kinda reminds me of these

just like the copper pipe and magnet trick as magnets are not atracted to one another but put a magnet through a copper pipe and see what happens

www.coolmagnetman.com...
regentsprep.org...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...


double slit theory

en.wikipedia.org...

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

i think were getting close

The only true wisdom comes when you finally realise that you know nothing.

And man...the human race really does no about about the world we live in.

reply to post by boaby_phet


Whoooaaa ... hold on. Now sure this new experiment has thrown out some pretty interesting results , but that doesnt junk the entire theory of general relativity. There are still many parts of that theory that either hold water, or are at least a basis for working towards a more solid and unified theory. Please dont bash old science just because its old.
Now, I find all this fascinating. The sheer magnitude of the implications of this new research are utterly staggering, and I personaly cannot wait till the scientific bods get round a table and figure out what this all actualy means! I reckon theres got to be some new science, or at the very least some new tech to exploit this.

Originally posted by andy1972
The only true wisdom comes when you finally realise that you know nothing.

No, the only true wisdom comes when you finally realize that you are capable of knowing everything and understanding everything if you wish.

Instead of diving into differential equations and exotic theories there always is a laymen and logical approach.

We can debate for years in our confy chairs about which theory is right or wrong without achieving anything. Imo science is not about understanding nature but about enlightening mankind. Sadly it has been mixed into this political and economical mess.

Anyway I had some time to further think about this experiment and I came to a very simple conclusion. First of all I do not believe you need a super conductor. When they say current was flowing it is not current in the conventional sense.

In a super conductor the mobile electrons are so detached that when the material is moved or rotated they lag behind, sort of like rotating a bowl of water were the water doesn't really rotate with the bowl.

So when this super conductor material is rotated it's the positive atoms that will cause a current appearance not the electrons.

Second. The advantage of this single fact is that you can make very high "artificial" currents with very little effort. The current we know is usually VERY slow movement of charge, a few centimeters per hour sometimes. But imagine that its speed can be controlled mechanically by rotation. Suddenly this speed becomes very high.

This brings me to the conclusion that any charged particles will give rise to the same effect. For instance rotating electrons either mechanically or through a circular particle accelerator, or rotating positive ions (aka plasma) for that matter.

The point is that you need to rotate either positive or negative charge at high speeds.

I have thought about using a cathode ray tube in a toroidal fashion and combining that with a Luis Alvarez type particle accelerator:



There's no need to make the particles spin near the speed of light so the frequency can remain low. But pulsed DC can be used through some sort of flyback transformer to pulse the drift tubes.

Of course this above talk is useless if I'm not going to build and experiment isn't it .

reply to post by robwerden

why does it have to be alien technology with you people ?
why can,t you give credit to human scientists . to listen to people like you every thing we have ever discovered or invented has come from ALIENS.

Originally posted by tom.farnhill
reply to post by robwerden

 

why does it have to be alien technology with you people ?
why can,t you give credit to human scientists . to listen to people like you every thing we have ever discovered or invented has come from ALIENS.

Well, it is awfully damning evidence that there was SOME intervention when lead Nazi officials explain that they "had help" when talking about the massive leaps forward in technology that they had.

Considering that most of the technology that the world uses today was given a massive push forward by the Nazi's, and the above admission that they recieved help, tells me that what walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, is indeed a duck.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by tom.farnhill
reply to post by robwerden

 

why does it have to be alien technology with you people ?
why can,t you give credit to human scientists . to listen to people like you every thing we have ever discovered or invented has come from ALIENS.

Well, it is awfully damning evidence that there was SOME intervention when lead Nazi officials explain that they "had help" when talking about the massive leaps forward in technology that they had.

Considering that most of the technology that the world uses today was given a massive push forward by the Nazi's, and the above admission that they recieved help, tells me that what walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, is indeed a duck.

I know that there are probably a lot of threads covering what you just said but why would they help the Nazis.

Enterprise Mission has long talked about the 'spoiler' effect of rotating bodies on predicting flight paths. This is old hat but worn by a new group.

See Hoagland's reportage on Van Braun and (I believe) Bara (?) the Physicist's work.

If I remember correctly the experiment is easily conducted, provides the anomalous data and is repeatable, Spin a ball bearing with a Dremel drill, pop it upward and it will fly further and faster than it should, both up and down. Don't spin it and it reacts 'normally'.

The reluctance of this crew to file the paper is a testament to the need of sites such as this. They, the hierarchy, are so afraid of controversy they shy away from greatness.

They don't deserve to be considered scientists. They are mere academics and will deserve no notoriety, favorable or unfavorable, for this exploration.

Originally posted by bharata

I know that there are probably a lot of threads covering what you just said but why would they help the Nazis.

I do not know. I could only guess.

Think of it like this: would you understand the logic that fueled the ethical considerations of a species that was either far, far beyond you in intelligence (as we are to a dog) or a collective that was able to achieve superintelligence via the reasoning power of the serial connections of the masses?

Higher intelligence usually equates to a higher logic. One with different considerations of what makes up "right" and "wrong".

We kill animals without even thinking about it. That spider that scurried across your floor, and you crushed it? Have you considered how your logical justification for how that is ethical would not quite mesh with the reality of that spider?

As humans, we have selectively eradicated various species, and genetically enhanced other species via intelligent husbandry. Would the prairie dog, which was seen as a "pest" similar to a weed, agree with such an assessment?

I can say only one thing with absolute certainty: the reality of reality is far stranger than you would likely even be able to fathom.

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder
The article expands on the incredible size of the gravitomagnetic field, and the possibility of merging General Relativity with Quantum or String Theory.
It seems the experiment is implying that when an object is put into motion it will actually produce more of the field than should be feasibly possible for its mass.

[edit on 26-2-2010 by Shark_Feeder]

Which is why the Hadron Collider could cause the earth crust movement.

Originally posted by noobsauce13
Now what's going to happen?

does that mean we can finally have flying cars?

Or a hoverboard???

Man you hit the nail on the head. It's coming.

The theory of the exponential potential on the inverse modulate areas that are relativity bound, are purely practicing electrochemical fields on modulation arcs. This means the theory posseses inverse modulators of kinematic frequency potential. The relationship between electricity and gravitation can be clearly expressed as the consequential factor of polarization between two identifyable phenomena, ie; frequency and dispersion. The modulate area is a relativistic area in the case of the transponential activator in thermo-dynamic relativity. This means to say that the origin in state is said to reinstate the probable verve in a system's dynamic potential, in a climatized effect with conjoined attributes between the frequency and its verve in potential dynamic shift. Based on this theory, it is possible that the relationship between electricity and gravitation is the isochemical pulse in Newton's gravitation. Binding coupling agents could be the fifth dynamic state in elementary potentials, by congruent states in the dynamic shift's potential forming isolated junctures in the pneumatic verve of the system potential. The recalculable version is the system's dynamic state in a proliferal conversion of the quantum mechanical approach of Buckminster Fuller, by using the isokinetic magnetic tables to inference design on the probable structures of kinematic pathways in referenced material.

Hello, I don't know if this has been asked before, I don't think it has. Butfor the plain english lovers here, does anyone know what this would mean in terms of what out universe would look like? What else would it show it tejmar's experiments were correct?

reply to post by malakiem


Basically if this experiment is correct and repeatable it would imply that gravity will increase when an object is in motion. This could alter our view of how the universe behaves, heck it could alter everything.

When the subject was rotating rather than creating a gravity field equal to its size it is spawning a field many orders larger that what the theory of Relativity suggest.

This I believe could apply in the many alternative energy machines we hear about on ATS. Of course as some have mentioned this could also lead to new forms of transportation.

how did humans define time when animals illustrate having the concept? for example my dog always knows at the right time of day when my brother finishes school and barks for me to walk her to the school gates to meet my brother.

also is it not incredibly presumptuous for us to claim that we are the ones who created the first concepts of many things like time when we can't read an animal's mind and know what it thinks for sure? reminds me of the arguments about animals not being self aware and things like that. i'm afraid without asking a dog in a language you can both speak you'll never likely reach a properly justified answer and even if you could, it would be no easier to prove than for one human to prove to another that they are self aware and not just pre-programed so to speak. similarly i think a lot of the scientific community was happy to consider animals as being unemotional and basically just instinctive and living in the present, even though some recent studies have illustrated some animals appearing to show emotion and making moral decisions which could result in their own death rather than practical decisions which make sense.

sorry for the slight tangent and i'm probably missing something which can say how i'm missing the original point. it's just that i tend to find sweeping statements in science generally very unscientific. god knows how many times i've been told by 'expert scientists' that it's impossible that life could exist on a planet like jupiter for example. the logic simply being that nothing we know could survive on it, therefore nothing we don't know could survive on it either. it's a horribly unscientific stance and the lack of an open mind to such possibilities only slows our progress of getting nearer to the actual truth, whatever that may be.

i think it's good to see established theories being challenged because over time their accuracy tends to be considered a given and all manner of new theories are thought up which branch off the original theory. yet if the original theory isn't 100% correct then it has implications with the newer theories perhaps being even less acurrate or even entirely innaccurate. i'm also a believer that we as a species have probably got a lot of our assumed theories quite significantly wrong simply because with many theories it can be so hard to really test them properly because they apply to such abstract or sort of imeasurable things. it being impossible to reach or go faster than the speed of light being one thing. as a not particularly intelligent person i couldn't possibly say it IS wrong, but i am probably right to suggest that we couldn't even begin to try and prove this physically because it is so impractical to try and we don't have the means. but our 'laws' of physics seem to go out of the window in quantum mechanics so who is to say in something like lightspeed which we can't presumably test properly and only theorise about that our 'laws' are any more accurate than they are in quantum mechanics.

like i said i am not that intelligent and maybe some smart person can explain why everything i've said is conclusively wrong beyond reasonable doubt. i just think that as perhaps this op and quantum mechanics show, we know VERY, VERY little and we are far too quick to make big claims with such certainty in my opinion.

[edit on 27-2-2010 by Renegade Bison]

Remember that any radically new interpretation of any theory must still account for all the observations which have been recorded to date. General Relativity didn't REPLACE Newton's theory of gravity so much as it extended it to all sorts of new situations that it didn't apply. General Relativity provides a totally different way of looking at the problem of gravity, but it makes the same predictions as Newton's gravity in situations where it applies.

Likewise, if this observation that started the topic turns out to require a new extension to theory, it doesn't re-write everything we already know. We can't just scrap all of physics - though a greater understanding might let us see some things in a new way.

Dark matter - as an idea, it bugs me too! It seems like a way of fudging observations to fit theory. But I've spent enough time in small groups with very smart people far more experienced than I, and they have all made many very convincing arguments for its existence. I hate to just refer those interested to the wikipedia page on dark matter, but it's actually very well done, including good descriptions of some of the observational evidence for its existence.
en.wikipedia.org...

I've worked with raw data from measurements of galactic rotation curves and velocity dispersions that show there is a lot of mass out there that we just can't see. Dark matter could just be neutrinos and other subatomic bits blown out by the big bang - it doesn't have to be anything too exotic

If this doesn't make sense, that's ok! No one ever claimed the universe has to make sense, and there's no guarantee that we'll ever understand much of anything.

Originally posted by m-theory
Remember that any radically new interpretation of any theory must still account for all the observations which have been recorded to date.

This is absolutely true. Just remember this experiment is not a theory, its merely an observation of an effect that doesn't fit with the current models. If we are lucky this might lead to a new theory though, or at least expand current ideas.

I've worked with raw data from measurements of galactic rotation curves and velocity dispersions that show there is a lot of mass out there that we just can't see. Dark matter could just be neutrinos and other subatomic bits blown out by the big bang - it doesn't have to be anything too exotic

Could this "extra mass" detected be the results of particle movement, or perhaps the rotation of the stars and galaxies themselves? I have nothing to back this up that isn't in the op, but I felt the need to throw it out there.

If this doesn't make sense, that's ok! No one ever claimed the universe has to make sense, and there's no guarantee that we'll ever understand much of anything.

This I can't agree with more.

reply to post by Shark_Feeder


First. You are supposed to quote the exact article title. (ATS rules, not mine)

Second. This experiment will not and cannot 'prove The Theory of General Relativity wrong', it only relates to one prediction.

Of course, the original title isn't much better than yours. It does get it half right though, it is the first test to find a specific GR prediction to be wrong, but does not find the entire theory wrong.

It is extremely interesting that in 100 years of GR, this is the first experiment to find a result different than the prediction. That is an absolutely amazing record in favor of GR.

Physicists will be studying this result very closely and we may not have answers for years. Maybe there is something going on with the experiment that the researchers have missed. Maybe the GR calculations for the Gravitomagnetic effect have been wrong all these years. Maybe it is a new data point altogether that has to be accounted for.

I expect this is going to be a hot topic in Physics for some time to come.

And that is cool!


[edit on 27/2/2010 by rnaa]