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.

 

Roll over Einstein: Pillar of physics challenged

page: 13
142
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 

it was just on the bbc news(i know msm) they just need others to double
check their calculations but from what i just watched these particles
were sent by cern i think anyway they got to their destination before light did
so it is possible to travle faster than light ?
what implications will this have on space travle ? and will they be able to use this on
heavy crafty as they only used tiny particles?

edit on 23-9-2011 by maryhinge because: spell check

edit on 23-9-2011 by maryhinge because: spell check 2




posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by DocEmrick
 


Yes it is I also recall they said they would let us know by christmas if the God partical is real bold claims.

But this makes me wonder maybe they have known all this info for alot longer than we are lead to believe maybe they knew the moment they ran the first test, and this is why they continued to build more LHC devices of greater power and spec and also all the other underground/overground tests that we dont get told about.

I believe the answer was known before the test begun call it a hunch.
We may just be the generation of change.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 



If relativity is wrong why does GPS work?


Why wouldn't it?

(Second Line)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by DragonFire1024

CERN says a neutrino beam fired from a particle accelerator near Geneva to a lab 454 miles (730 kilometers) away in Italy traveled 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light.



So the way I calculate it, the time according to the speed of light to travel the distance of 730km (at 299,792 kilometers per second) is 2.4 milliseconds.

So the increase in speed is 0.0025 percent faster than it should have been.

I say this for no reason. I just wanted to calculate it for myself.



you are right, this is very little difference, can be anything else ....
why don't they do the same experiment but in a loop from one place to the other up and down again a million times and then look after some difference in time ......



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonseeker
 



interesting stuff there...thanks for posting that. also, which field of physics does the study of FTL travel fall under exactly?


As far as I can tell... it doesn't, because all of the physicists already "*KNOW*" that you can't do that.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
Don't get me wrong....I LOVE physics and science but like you I like seeing them not get hung up on old theories and allow new theories some weight....even when it goes against Newton or Einstein and that is exactly what has taken place here.
I'm not sure if you get this, but one of the things that made Einstein a hero is that he did go against Newton. So in a way you could say science eventually idolized the guy who upset the old, existing theory, though his ideas initially met with plenty of resistance.

We aren't sure what has taken place here, probably just a measurement problem. The discrepancy is extremely small.


Originally posted by 547000
If relativity is wrong why does GPS work?
I'm pretty convinced relativity is right, but GPS doesn't necessarily prove Einstein's version is more correct than Lorentz's version of relativity as this interesting paper mentions:

metaresearch.org...

7. Does the behavior of GPS clocks confirm Einstein SR?

To answer this, we must make a distinction between Einstein SR and Lorentzian Relativity (LR). Both Lorentz in 1904 and Einstein in 1905 chose to adopt the principle of relativity discussed by Poincare in 1899, which apparently originated some years earlier in the 19th century. Lorentz also popularized the famous transformations that bear his name, later used by Einstein. However, Lorentz’s relativity theory assumed an aether, a preferred frame, and a universal time. Einstein did away with the need for these. But it is important to realize that none of the 11 independent experiments said to confirm the validity of SR experimentally distinguish it from LR -- at least not in Einstein's favor.


It took other experiments to show aether didn't exist, at least not the "luminiferous aether", though Einstein talked about a "new aether", terminology which never caught on.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Sunlionspirit
 


This is exactly what they do they run this test millions of times over and over until the section has been exhausted and all results are then analyzed so I think this must have happened here with this particular section.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
dont be so quick to accept this, I am betting the experiment is flawed



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
for those of you who wish to understand a little more about particle physics and the world of quantum physics . without going too far down the rabbit hole and being overwhelmed by maths!
then check out the book quantum!

its a good read and will certainly peak your interest in quantum physics !



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


GPS accounts for relativistic clock drift. If relativity's description of time dilation was wrong, this clock correction would be wrong as well.

rrr



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Given that it hasn't been absolutely proven that neutrinos have mass, this doesn't actually violate Relativity.

Unless we can prove neutrino mass, that is.

Harte



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


An interesting detail about mass less objects: relativity only prevents objects from accelerating to the speed of light. An object could in theory travel at the speed of light if it managed to reach it without having to accelerate. In conventional terms this sounds crazy, but if the effect of "mass"could be suspended, then there would be no speed limit.

The Alcubierre drive is another example, but instead of suspending mass, it requires decoupling a space time bubble, with the craft inside it.

Maybe mass is not a property of matter but an effect of stressing the vaccum with an attempt to accelerate. If so, couldn't we speculate that gravity is a constant acceleration of vacuum into mass?

Just my thoughts

rrr



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
If it's shown that neutrinos do regularly travel faster than light-speed, then we have
a serious problem on our hands.
I understand the 'Mass' question, but what about song lyrics?
'Speed Of Light' rhymes with many words, but neutrinos?

Serious times indeed.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sunlionspirit
why don't they do the same experiment but in a loop from one place to the other up and down again a million times and then look after some difference in time ......
If there's a systematic error in the measurement you can make the measurement a million times and get the wrong answer a million times. That's most likely what has happened here.

They now need to get some independent replications which may not have the same systematic error (if that suspected cause is what's going on).



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
I think the media is making a big issue out of this.

The speed of light is not constant...it has different values for different mediums:

en.wikipedia.org...

.
edit on 23-9-2011 by GrassyKnoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Light consists of quanta of photons...they don't decay but they can be "changed" so to say to a pair of matter and antimatter through pair production and vice versa.


reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 


In equations...we talk about light being through a vacuum which is the fastest possible speed we know of. Tbh, neutrinos are very very very weakly ionizing..so it grows through literally everything...therefore different media doesn't really affect it.

edit on 23-9-2011 by BlackPoison94 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
already know there are things faster than light, tell me something I don't know.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by rickyrrr
 



GPS accounts for relativistic clock drift. If relativity's description of time dilation was wrong, this clock correction would be wrong as well.


You are assuming that there could be no other explanation for clock drift than Einstein's Relativity.

Relativity states that clocks drift because of time dilation, and gravity warping space.

This by no means proves that relativity is correct.

It just proves that it APPEARS to be correct in this instance.

What if the time dilation was actually caused by clipping through magnetic field lines at high speed?

What then?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
I don't know if its possibly for an atom to completely exist out of neutrons, but if not... Then so what?

Chances are they are losing financial backers in possibly the most useless $billions in history.

What's interesting is someone mentioning einstein's theory is still in tact, just that maybe the rules bent slightly...

...Maybe its elenin?







Hahahaha



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


But if u did something a million times, testing different "angles" you will have to come to a solution at some stage.

Or else your a crap mathematician, engineer, physicist etc

But there is one other reason to get it wrong... If your desperate
edit on 23-9-2011 by kykweer because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
142
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join