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.

 

I think we have the theory of the Universe of size and time completly wrong!

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Observer99
 


Precisely what i believe good sir.
edit on 30-6-2011 by Biigs because: spelt "believe" wrong alot


edit: second line.
edit on 30-6-2011 by Biigs because: added text




posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


Like I said. c does not change speed, only direction, and serious minds beyond me account for errors in measurements, just not me. If you look out a window of your enclosure, does everything outside not follow you binds of nature?

Its a fallacy of logic to conclude that anywhere we haven't stepped foot on is totally unpredictable. Otherwise man would have never stepped foot on our moon.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by michael1983l
 


Like I said. c does not change speed, only direction, and serious minds beyond me account for errors in measurements, just not me. If you look out a window of your enclosure, does everything outside not follow you binds of nature?

Its a fallacy of logic to conclude that anywhere we haven't stepped foot on is totally unpredictable. Otherwise man would have never stepped foot on our moon.


hey now be careful there, totally unpredictable isnt where the thoughts were going, more the fact our predictions based on our current knowladge may be subject to some "adjustment"


EDIT: the particle according to its own data might say its the same speed, but obversers might see VAST differences in speed or direction as the particle sprints through different solar systems, galaxies or vast open spaces between celestial bodys
edit on 30-6-2011 by Biigs because: added text



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   


Right, and I've previously stated how gravitational force (acting FTL) transfers energy, and since E = mc^2 that is technically already mass/energy travelling FTL.


Wrong, it is zero point energy that can travel faster than c, not matter, not photons of light, only a void of such. It is what (increasing speed of the Universe) expansion is all about.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Biigs

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by michael1983l



hey now be careful there, totally unpredictable isnt where the thoughts were going, more the fact our predictions based on our current knowladge may be subject to some "adjustment"


Absolutely, but how much does finding another decimal of Pi matter? Might sound totally off topic but think about the magnitude of error we might be talking about and to what 'effect' it might theoretically imply.

I messed up my quote editing, hope you can follow.
edit on 30-6-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


But that is precisely what I am suggesting that the speed of light can change under certain conditions. Light does not travel in a vacum without particles appearing and disappearing randomly out of nothing. That is a brain scrambler that I do not understand one bit. However who is to say that the substance or lack of that sits between the membrance of solar systems in Galaxies and open space, is not an entirely different structure all together.

Maybe this substance is anti matter thus creating an anti mass and this could change the perception of M in einsteins theory. Also this substance that sits outside the membrane may interact with the photons in a different way.

so many questions, so little physical evidence to back up theories about deep space.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
This might be a little off topic but theres somthing i have trouble understanding regarding photons.

Photons have mass, or at least have mass while in transit (solar wind kites etc)

But according to many theorys the faster matter travels the more mass it has, upto 99.9% C where it boarders on infinate mass.

The bit i have a problem with:

Either; the photon has no mass but at C generates a charge that behaves like mass OR the particle does infact have a mass thats only relivent at C.

Current understanding on this confuses me.

EDIT: matter is energy, the mass ofthe matter is viable on its speed. ergo energy has mass?!
edit on 30-6-2011 by Biigs because: added confusing equasion



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 


A photon of light must have a mass as we detect its prescence by impacts of photons onto our retina. What might be the answer to you conundrum is that maybe a photon slowed down to next to nothing has so small a mass that when it is increased by the speed in which it travels it is still insignificant? Or maybe a Photon is anti mass and is projected though our solar sytem at such high velosity because every single particle is deflecting it away.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 

You have to remember that photons (particles of light) exist only in theory, there is no evidence for them.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
An analysis of the Ampere-Maxwell Law shows that the speed of light cannot be variable. It leads to two different constraints:

1) E = vB

where E is the amplitude of the electric field, B is the amplitude of the magnetic field, and v is the general velocity of the propagation of electromagnetic radiation.

2) E = B/euv

where e is the permitivity of the vacuum and u is the permeability of the vacuum (found also in Coulomb's law and the Biot-Savart law, in case there is any question as to how fundamental these constants are).

The only possible way both of these equations can be correct is if v = 1/sqrt(eu). This is the velocity required for the self-propagation of the electromagnetic field. Any other velocity and the electric and magnetic components will fail to sustain each other.

The speed of light is a fundamental constant. It is not variable.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


Light does not change under conditions, only the conditions light travels through change.

Let me put you into a 'particle' of light traveling c, the massless photon. (of course). It is not experiencing time ahead while it travels c because it is not mass, mass cannot travel c. A photon doesn't know this because it is not mass, with sensory, logical, or 3-dimensional abilities, its basically a thought, a mathematical description that is measurable, and not a particle.

As you approach traveling c your time slows in respect to how close you approach traveling c. To you approaching traveling c light still passes you at c from any observational point in space because that is how much time dilatation you are undergoing approaching light speed. Once you reach c, time to you stops.

Those happy little photons that took 13 billion years to reach us to see in our time took zero amount of time in the travel of the photon of light, (if it was a cognitive entity, which it is not).

If you as a being made of matter could approach traveling c, the time elapsed in your universe, metabolic state of matter, would slow that time elapsed would become negligible and you could go billions of light years away from you're starting point aging just seconds. Just don't ever try to go back, reverse time travel is impossible. One can only cheat time forward, not backwards.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
This is pretty cool info.

I see what your saying. That because the bubbles are new information to us that we could assume that calculations could be thrown off. It's possible.

Also understand that it may not be the case. The information learned here could just be a "process" of how things works and not a revelation. Just like the discovery of photosynthesis. We always known that plants needed water and sunlight, but after the discovery, we know why and how it all works.

So it could be either way, but probably the process bit, yeah?

edit on 30-6-2011 by Mizzijr because: Literary Corrections



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Well light is a form of energy much like heat/radiation and sound. Heat/radiation and sound are much the same as they are present either by vibration or excitement of atoms. Light on the other hand in my lehmans terms brain does not posess the same qualities. Light does not seem to impact particles around it, more travel through, deflect or be absorbed and turned into heat.

Maybe light is the prequil to all heat and radiation. a totally different form of energy if you will of which science has not detected as of yet.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


A photon only has relativistic mass (the source of its relativistic momentum, p, found by p = E/c). If you could slow a photon to less than the speed of light, its mass would vanish... but, then, if you could do that, then the wave-function of the photon, itself, would collapse, as I explained in my post above.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by michael1983l
 


Light does not change under conditions, only the conditions light travels through change.

Let me put you into a 'particle' of light traveling c, the massless photon. (of course). It is not experiencing time ahead while it travels c because it is not mass, mass cannot travel c. A photon doesn't know this because it is not mass, with sensory, logical, or 3-dimensional abilities, its basically a thought, a mathematical description that is measurable, and not a particle.

As you approach traveling c your time slows in respect to how close you approach traveling c. To you approaching traveling c light still passes you at c from any observational point in space because that is how much time dilatation you are undergoing approaching light speed. Once you reach c, time to you stops.

Those happy little photons that took 13 billion years to reach us to see in our time took zero amount of time in the travel of the photon of light, (if it was a cognitive entity, which it is not).

If you as a being made of matter could approach traveling c, the time elapsed in your universe, metabolic state of matter, would slow that time elapsed would become negligible and you could go billions of light years away from you're starting point aging just seconds. Just don't ever try to go back, reverse time travel is impossible. One can only cheat time forward, not backwards.


Ok then if photons of light appear to have time slowed down then it would suggest to our perception that the particle of light is everywhere at the same time. In which case the universe should be flooded with light, so much so that we are overpowered by it?



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


But it is, point us to a space with zero light. That would not be space in OUR universe.

I assure you you cannot point us to a space outside of OUR universe.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


No. To the photon, it is everywhere at once (or, more specifically, everything is standing still as it moves). To any observer, it is moving at c. Also, to any given photon, all other photons are moving at c.
That may seem counter-intuitive, but its exactly this issue that Special Relativity describes.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by michael1983l
 


But it is, point us to a space with zero light. That would not be space in OUR universe.

I assure you you cannot point us to a space outside of OUR universe.


what denotes the "edge" of our universe?

Some might say its:
The furthest any particale has reached from the big bang
The furthest any thing/one could go AND get back
The edge of the rules of our universe, in terms of physics/sceince
The flat plane of a boundary, like a wall
The edge of neighbouring universes
The piont at which a "god" says 'woa there you cant go any furthr this is all i created'

What say you?

edit on 30-6-2011 by Biigs because: added text



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I can't really counter that as it is beyond my understanding. I am just saying that the we thought the Earth was flat for hundreds of years until we developed the technology and understanding to discover otherwise. We had our reasons for believing the earth was flat much like we have the reasons for believing current theories about physics. However one day we may view the data from a different perspective or discover a technology or entity that will change our understanding completly. It has happened thousands upon thousands of times throughout human history, it would be a brave man to suggest that it will never happen again.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
I can't really counter that as it is beyond my understanding. I am just saying that the we thought the Earth was flat for hundreds of years until we developed the technology and understanding to discover otherwise. We had our reasons for believing the earth was flat much like we have the reasons for believing current theories about physics. However one day we may view the data from a different perspective or discover a technology or entity that will change our understanding completly. It has happened thousands upon thousands of times throughout human history, it would be a brave man to suggest that it will never happen again.



Since we dont know what might exist beyond our own visable 'bubble' (and to be honest we are still discovering whats in our bubble) our perception and understanding is based on a very unique perspective which may intern warp what we think we already understand.

We are lucky to have visionarys like Dr Hawkin who can understand and realise some of the amazing traits of the universe, these people will help us to think and eventually understand what is beyond our bubble right now.

Its a slow progress, im hoping of all the plausable statistics we have to surgest their out there, an alein race will visit us and fill in some blanks

edit on 30-6-2011 by Biigs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join