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

page: 9
72
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
This goes with my experiment which would produce time travel! That is what is happening I already knew it! The key is the light!

[edit on 27-2-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]




posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   

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


My apologies I was a bit sloppy, should have pasted the title. It won't happen again.




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


I agree with you and have already stated that position. I personally believe that this will hopefully lead to a link between Relativity and Quantum Physics.Not to be rude but have you read through all the posts? I have been over that point several times.



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.


Even if it is the first experiment to question GR its implicit in the search of truth to examine all anomalies.

Also remember that until recent years we did not have the technology to study these types of fields and effects.



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!


Here I agree with you.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   
we usually find that our correct theories are just a particular case of a much larger law of the universe... looks like relativity will have to be extended if these experiments can be reproduced! i love living in exciting times!



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Shark_Feeder
 





Even if it is the first experiment to question GR its implicit in the search of truth to examine all anomalies.

Also remember that until recent years we did not have the technology to study these types of fields and effects.


Yes. I was just waxing poetic over the amazing robustness of GR. It is an amazing success story.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   
I would like to point something out, and am likely going out on a limb here, but it needs to be said. I would be interested to hear input from others on this...

E=mc2, right? Einsteins legacy..... Well, if energy is the equivalent of mass moving at the speed of light squared, and we base the "movement" of light as being measured at one position compared to another over a period of time, and time as we base it is from the measurement of CHANGE from cause and effect, which we can not perceive without light... we can safely assume that our perception of reality is based purely on light because without it we would have no basis for time, which every human uses to base their reality on. Everything you do in your life is based on a time of day, day of week, month of year, etc. so our entire life is hinged around time. This includes relativity.

Does anyone else see the irony here?? We observe nature to logically derive patterns, which is how numbers originated in the first place and is now the universal basis for our understanding of EVERYTHING. Someone way back, evolved to see common things and group them together, ie numbers. We then use the numbers we derived from patterns in nature to define other patterns in nature through math. If our understanding of time is wrong, everything we know as reality is also. You can use clocks and atomic clocks all you want, but it is still based on movement that is perceived over time, which does not exist without light.

My point of argument here is that if we originally came to the conclusion of numbers being logical groupings of what we perceived in nature on EARTH, it is possible that all of our measurements using math to further identify reality could be wrong. Forget the formulas for a second and think about what I am saying here.

It does not get more ironic.... Hard to wrap your head around.

namaste



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by boaby_phet
ive thought for years, that alot of einstiens stuff although brilliant, is most likely wrong ...we have to remember his theorys are old and based upon outdates science, scince then their have been many more things discovered, some that obey his rules and some that doesnt..

the problem i have is that scientists use all his theorys to try and come to their own answers, which is pretty closed minded imo .


Who are you to say that a lot of Einsteins "stuff" is "most likely wrong"? Because they are "old"? You know what else is "old"...Mathematics.

Was Einstein infallible? Of course not. But I don't believe the theories of one of the greatest contributors to science should be discounted simply because of their shelf life.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Shark_Feeder
 



According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a moving mass should create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its static gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first time and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts.

This gravitomagnetic field is similar to the magnetic field produced by a moving electric charge (hence the name "gravitomagnetic" analogous to "electromagnetic").


If MASS and SPEED must be calculated then by which standards do we measure SPEED and how correct can we be about it?
At least we think we can measure MASS right..So lets accept our measures as being correct.
How about some "relative" measurements about SPEED?

an object/charge measured speed relatively on the surface of the earth plus:

earth speed through space
earth speed of revolution
earth speed around sun
earth speed on axis
earth speed spin

sun speed through space
sun speed of revolution

local star cluster speed through space
local star cluster speed through space

galaxy speed through space
galaxy speed through space

galaxy cluster speed through space
galaxy cluster speed through space

supergalaxy cluster speed discovery+spin+rotation

An inter-relation process is the wisest approach.
Even if we "prove" relativity wrong, it will just come back to hunt us charging (no pun) from behind another hidden parameter we never thought about.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by spacebot]



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   
and of course we should never forget this:

Two Simple Experiments that Violate Known Physics

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or else as a R. C. Hoagland named it, "The De Palma experiment"



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I'm not sure if it's already mentioned here but there's something imho is missing from the experiment: vacuum. If they remove air from the experiment and conducted it in a vacuum then any change in mass will be detected pure based on "gravitational coupling". As far as I know, the weight loss observed / measured was not a wt loss but a lift due the exitement of atoms when a high voltage source was applied. The exitement of the atom particles in the copper foils created this "observed" lift.
Here's what I would like to know - if they redo the experiment, this time in a vaccum will they get the same result?
My prediction - 0 loss.

Note:
I work in electronic engineering designing test boards for a specialized testing of devices. One of the factors we always consider is coupling of transmission lines - depending on the type of material used (K) proximity of the wires plus thickness and length of the wires you will come up with different values of coupling. The farther the wires the less the coupling. Also, we know that wires inside the PCB is different from wires outside the PCB due to permeativity.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by spacebot
 





If MASS and SPEED must be calculated then by which standards do we measure SPEED and how correct can we be about it?


That is why it is called the Theory of Relativity.

The results can change depending on the relation of the observed to the observer.

To use a Newtonian physics word picture, to an Earth based observer, it is perfectly reasonable to picture the Sun as orbiting the Earth. All practical Sun/Earth relationship calculations come out perfectly fine, if maybe a bit over complicated. It is only when you start adding in the relative motions of the planets that things get complicated beyond practicality. Choosing the Sun as the observers 'fixed' point simplifies Solar system calculations and produces accurate, usable, results. But of course the Sun is only 'fixed' in relation to the planets, if you want to study the galaxy, the Sun is not a good home base for the observer.

Relativity looks for a universal 'fixed' point for the observer, and finds it in the speed of light. And that is the answer to your question.

The speed of light is the universal constant that relativity uses as a base line.

However, it must be understood that this is not important on the everyday mundane level of existence. Newtonian physics is just find for figuring out relative speeds of objects on Earth or of planets around the Sun, or even of the Sun around the Galactic center (unless you need extremely accurate measurements of 'reasonably' fast objects like GPS satellites).

It is only when an object's speed approaches the speed of light that strange things start to happen and we need to use the Einsteins tools. So when we are trying to figure out what is happening on an atomic level we need to take into account relativity.

GPS satellites aren't going anywhere near the speed of light, but they are going fast enough that Relativity affects the accuracy of clock reading between the ground stations and the satellite. This means that the differences must be taken into account when calculating your position.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jose11
 


Ah, perhaps. But then again I thought it was common knowledge that there is no such thing as a literal 'vacuum'.
zero point energy

In fact, the sole criteria that distinguishes electromagnetic waves from other things like sound is that it supposedly can travel through a 'vacuum'.

Yet we can clearly see that there is no such vacuum, only a really low density - I would postulate infinitely low(approaching zero).

By the way, great thread. Read til about page 6 or so, might go back to read more.




posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacebot
and of course we should never forget this:

Two Simple Experiments that Violate Known Physics

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or else as a R. C. Hoagland named it, "The De Palma experiment"


speaking of De Palma i have a question: what happens when you stack a few rotating 7200rpm hard drives? any special torsion fields created or is that only visible in special lab conditions? or are the hard drives already secretly calculated to compensate for the torsion fields?



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by jose11
 


Ah, perhaps. But then again I thought it was common knowledge that there is no such thing as a literal 'vacuum'.
zero point energy

In fact, the sole criteria that distinguishes electromagnetic waves from other things like sound is that it supposedly can travel through a 'vacuum'.

Yet we can clearly see that there is no such vacuum, only a really low density - I would postulate infinitely low(approaching zero).

By the way, great thread. Read til about page 6 or so, might go back to read more.



Yes you are correct there's no literal vacuum at least here on earth, but the vacuum I'm thinking of is the removal of air - this way it can be eleminated from the equation. Because in the experiment they conducted there was still air underneath the capacitor plates in which the atoms can interact against/with.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
The book Secrets of Anti-Gravity Propulsion quotes a black world scientist acknowledging relativity is flawed and the top of the aerospace/defense industry have a new physics based on an "ether" concept. In this theory, time and space are absolute. I don't know how it can explain away all of Einstein, and the verification of theories through experiments, but I'd guess it's probably like how relativity revolutionized newtonian physics. What we thought Einstein was explaining was a part of something larger and more fundamental. The weaponization of this new energy source is beyond comprehension, thus it's classified.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
The weaponization of this has already been used.

You could used these fundamentals to saaaay i dunno.....pull down 2 megalithic steel structures. the side effects would be obvious. bits of pressurized steel would be blown out the sides of the building in a negative-magnetic manner.

The only thing you need to pull this off would be a large amount of a ferrous metal.

Electrified mercury is one option.....but far too costly....considering the circumstances. why spend the money when you already have something better.

GOLD. It can create a high enough of a magnetic charge when molten to create spin in a frictionless taurus. the resulting spin has no boundaries, but the electromagnetic energy cant get out, thus creating a gravometric field. anything above the taurus will be pulled towards its top, and an exhaust is created underneath it. i have a feeling that all of the area around ground zero is pulled down in the shape of a donut(taurus).

this is pretty much recreating the sun on a much smaller scale.

CERN is using this principle to a different degree. it is using only 1 gold atom. measuring, as the gold atom is flung at the speed of light, to see how much of a gravometric field is created by that gold atom when it hits the speed of light.

think about it. stop. and really know these principles. this isnt the first time this is being used.

The gold that Bush Sr seized from Iraq in the first Gulf war were being "stored" underneath 2 very special megalithic steel structures. Can you guess which ones? I'll give you a hint....they're not around anymore.

CERN may be the single stupidest act that man has ever committed. Aside from killing the host of Christ. Nothing beats that one.

Now that i have your third-eye open. I would just like to point out that we failed last time, the last 5 times actually. but we will not fail this time. The Avatar of God will exact his power upon this realm. Aphrodite, Michael, Christ, Vishnu, Nirvana....all just a single metaphor translated through different mediums.

"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought,
And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. "

Both the Matrix and Avatar make a reference to something having happened 5 times before. And now approaching the 6th major evolution/devilution split.(Star Wars, Mayan Calendar, Sumerians, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zhou Dynasty(3800BCE), Christianity, Greeks, Egyptians...just to name a few more instances that mention colossal celestial events occurring 5 times in a cyclical manner)

Be ready to fight people. Be ready to fight yourself.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Thank you for the clarification of how relativity is supposed to work.

Do you know of any circumstances that the speed of light was broken and how science has explained that, if they did?

reply to post by DarkSecret
 


Either you didn't understand the experiment or I haven't realized what you are trying to say.
You launch 2 rockets aiming at the moon, 1 spins for gyroscopic stability the other one is not. At some point you realize the spinning rocket covered more distance, became faster than the non spinning rocket, irregardless if any of them or both missing the moon. That's what Hoagland claims has happened during the dawn of space age and thus attempts for the moon kept failing and he demonstrated his logic presenting the De Palma experiment where a spinning sphere goes faster and further than a non spinning sphere, while both being launched from same instrument.


[edit on 1-3-2010 by spacebot]



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacebot
reply to post by DarkSecret
 


Either you didn't understand the experiment or I haven't realized what you are trying to say.
You launch 2 rockets aiming at the moon, 1 spins for gyroscopic stability the other one is not. At some point you realize the spinning rocket covered more distance, became faster than the non spinning rocket, irregardless if any of them or both missing the moon. That's what Hoagland claims has happened during the dawn of space age and thus attempts for the moon kept failing and he demonstrated his logic presenting the De Palma experiment where a spinning sphere goes faster and further than a non spinning sphere, while both being launched from same instrument.


well i'm trying to combine the spinning ball/rocket which makes them travel faster (because their mass/inertia is lower?) and the torsion fields created by the spinning disc which influences the clock (because the parts become lighter?).

so in the case of hard drives you have a few discs spinning at high speeds - does it have any of these effects? and if so then does it mean that the hard disk companies are "in on it" and keeping this secret knowingly or do they just consider it an oddity that was fixed through repeated testing and don't give it much importance (just considering it a trade secret)...?



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Howdy all, my first post here...

Was wondering if this was ever considered:

that we are moving in all directions at once.

I imagine a physical point as it relates to everthing else. the earth moves relative to the sun and solar system. It also moves relative to everything else. Everything moves relative to everything else. There is no direction, or the direction is everywhere at once.

as something materializes in a physical form, space/time emits from it in all directions.
Or it is seen as a dent in space time, but what if the dent is reconsidered as an emitting field? With Stronger fields overriding or masking weaker ones. Like the earth's vs. our own. Similar fields combine to form a bigger "bubble" of a field.

Consider butterfly effect.





top topics
 
72
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join