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.

CERN is clueless, science is confused

page: 1
4
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:27 PM

For some scientists, the Higgs remains the simplest explanation of how matter got mass. It remains unclear what could replace it as an explanation. "We know something is missing, we simply don't quite know what this new something might be," wrote CERN blogger Pauline Gagnon.

Source

The solution to your problem;

t = sqrt ( 1 - v^2/c^2 )

The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction equation, well actually, the inverse gives the result of mass.

Allow me to explain:

This equation calculates the increase in mass of an object in relative motion to an observer. Which is to say, matter never "got mass" from anything. "Mass" is nothing more than a result of the occupation of spacetime - all matter occupies spacetime therefore all matter has mass.
edit on 8/23/11 by Angry Danish because: made it prettier

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:29 PM
You really have no idea what you are talking about do you? I suggest you study fundamental physics.

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:30 PM
Care to elaborate instead of just calling me stupid and walking away?

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:32 PM
I just want everyone to know that I have no idea what is going on in this thread, and it scares me
That said, I do know I would be quite the fool stating that CERN doesn't know what they are doing. That is all.

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:35 PM
I agree, our tech has exceeded our wisdom, they don't even know what they hell there looking for over there. Time for a chalk board and endless conjecture because our brains can't exceed what we already know because frankly, there just not ready for it and nature has a funny way of telling you that.

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Angry Danish

t = sqrt

That's all I saw man, and then I was laughin too hard to read the rest. "squirt" mwahahahaha....

(cue the irate mathematicians in 3... 2... 1...)

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:45 PM
I don't know a thing about physics but I had a dream one time that the Lorenz transformation explained so much, but was being overlooked.

For what that's worth. lol

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:48 PM
To me it seems...an educated recluse..that mass is an effect of attraction. We know that relative mass, magnetism and light are linked. Is it so hard to bridge the gap and say light and magnetism are ONE (bc they are). If it gives of light it gives off magnetism. Collect enough particles and the light/mag will attract. Enough magnetism will create a mass effect. It is all intermolecular forces.

I feel that magnetism is deeply rooted in the gravitational force (and vice versa), but we haven't found the link yet.....anywho....thoughts?
edit on 23-8-2011 by adraves because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:00 PM
reply to post by adraves

It's actually funny that you bring up magnetism. There was this article I read not too long ago about a person that re-created a magnet that has the ability to align non-magnetic particles.

The strange thing about this magnet and the reason I say re-created is because back in the mid nineties a group of Japanese scientist created this magnet, but it was a fluke and they couldn't duplicate the results. So that eventually led to this guy studying what they did and now he is being extra cautious so it doesn't get lost and can be duplicated.

The magnet has something to do with nitrogen and iron of some sorts, and is the strongest magnet every created. Because this magnet is so strong it has the properties of being able to align non-magnetic particles.

Now I'm not a physicist, but if this guy is able to consistently reproduce this magnet, then it would explain gravity and possibly a host of other things. As at that point there is verifiable tests that a magnet of certain strength can align non-magnetic particles. Aligning of non-magnetic particles meaning that the magnet can attract non-magnetic materials.

Here is the article for a better explanation just in case I got it wrong.

And it is a iron-nitrogen magnet.
edit on 23-8-2011 by Timing because: corrections and addition of article.

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:02 PM

Originally posted by Helious
I agree, our tech has exceeded our wisdom, they don't even know what they hell there looking for over there. Time for a chalk board and endless conjecture because our brains can't exceed what we already know because frankly, there just not ready for it and nature has a funny way of telling you that.

I disagree...(it's my nature):

Well... what are you going to do tomorrow? mow the yard,eat lunch; play around of pickup ball at the park? Wow your,mind just exceeded what you absolutely "Know". We take what we "know" already and extrapolate out possibilities.These are either verified through experimentation or observation( play out with time).
They(cern and fermi lab in Chicago) are looking for something they haven't previously observed and "cataloged". The mathematics andmodel says it should be there.

edit on 23-8-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:03 PM
"Cern is clueless..." No. I think YOU'RE clueless.

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:13 PM
reply to post by iSeeKEnlightenment8o5

Actually CERN is really clueless about how all matter got their mass in the first place because explaining this with Higgs is like solving a mystery with another one.
And with this come the big question of where all the antimatter went?..........just saying

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:17 PM
Let us rather say tha cerne is seeking further wisdom......
There is an open court scramble to peoduce the essesnce of the iniverse.The missing link.
I think they should be looking to WB Smiths bookThe New Science.
Though it wasnt finished it still may contain clues that the boffins can use to unravel the basics....
Plasmas may contain some vital clue as well......

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:20 PM
reply to post by stirling

Where can I get this book?would be glad to read it

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:22 PM

Originally posted by stirling
Let us rather say tha cerne is seeking further wisdom......
There is an open court scramble to peoduce the essesnce of the iniverse.The missing link.
I think they should be looking to WB Smiths bookThe New Science.
Though it wasnt finished it still may contain clues that the boffins can use to unravel the basics....
Plasmas may contain some vital clue as well......

Yeah I'm sure the high energy physics phd's("boffins"?) at CERN need to "read up on plasmas"or bone up on "the basics..."

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:24 PM
reply to post by Angry Danish

The solution to your problem;

t = sqrt ( 1 - v^2/c^2 )

The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction equation, well actually, the inverse gives the result of mass.

Allow me to explain:

This equation calculates the increase in mass of an object in relative motion to an observer. Which is to say, matter never "got mass" from anything. "Mass" is nothing more than a result of the occupation of spacetime - all matter occupies spacetime therefore all matter has mass.

Can you give an example of matter that does not have mass?

Care to elaborate instead of just calling me stupid and walking away?

The Lorentz-contraction equation is used in special-relativity to calculate differences in length and time due to velocities(WRT c). Mass does not even come into the equation.

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Angry Danish
Care to elaborate instead of just calling me stupid and walking away?

yeah:

L' = frac[L][gamma(v)] = L , sqrt[1-v^2/c^2]

where

L is the proper length (the length of the object in its rest frame),
L' is the length observed by an observer in relative motion with respect to the object,
v , is the relative velocity between the observer and the moving object,
c , is the speed of light,

and the Lorentz factor is defined as

gamma (v) equiv frac[1][sqrt[1-v^2/c^2]] .

"Lorentz" doesn't have anything to do with mass just miniscule contraction of physical length at near the speed of light relative to an observer..

Length and mass are not inversely proportional in any frame as you stated above.
edit on 23-8-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-8-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-8-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:32 PM
reply to post by Timing

I guess my issue is with the standard model. Why does gravity have to be a separate force when attraction/acceleration create the same forces?

Is it not possible that spinning nuclei create a force that attracts other particles? Hrm. I don't feel gravity is any different from a huge magnetic field that attracts everything. In other words....mass attracts mass because it is magnetic and luminous.
edit on 23-8-2011 by adraves because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:44 PM
reply to post by Angry Danish

Mater is each subject to it's inviroment and pulling or surpressive force that have different forces as of the amount that they exert.

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:48 PM
reply to post by adraves

What it seems more like to me is that they have this model and they are trying to stuff everything to fit inside this model.

Take for example the article I posted above. It increases magnetism by 18% beyond the limit that was "theoretically" possible. That is almost 1/5 more than what they thought was possible.

Really in the end, it's a whole long debate and yes they have done a lot of work and made a lot of progress that does make a lot of what we call the standard model correct, but that doesn't mean that the pieces that we have of what we call the standard model aren't really pieces to a bigger totally different model.

new topics

top topics

4