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: 18
142
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by arbelisk

Originally posted by humphreysjim
Everyone is jumping the gun. This has not been confirmed, logic dictates this will be proven false in time, until then, speculation is pointless as we are speculating over something that is, most likely, false.


Got to love the skeptics. Always looking at the negative.
edit on 23-9-2011 by arbelisk because: (no reason given)


Just being realistic.




posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I'm always skeptical of any experiment that claims to violate one of the most thoroughly and accurately tested physical models we've ever had.

The layman is eager to see the downfall of this area of physics because the layman doesn't understand it, and, what the layman doesn't understand, the layman is afraid of.
The layman also doesn't understand that the successes of Relativity are so vast that they completely overshadow this single experiment.

I would actually bet my new MacBook Air that it's a systematic error.


I understand the skepticism and share it, yet i am open to the idea and i am awaiting either confirmation or correction.
However, I take issue with the talk of "laymen".
I don't believe anyone is "eager for the downfall of this area of physics" understodd or not. Nor do I think that "what the laymen doesn't understand, the laymen is afraid of.". As far as i can tell we are all, essentially, "laymen". The very fact that there is debate illustrates this. There is no true, definitive answer. Even the most learned scientist is a "laymen" when it comes to the universe yet it doesn't stop him from trying to learn more and push the boundaries of our collective understanding of the universe.
In turn, I don't have to be the world's greatest living scientist or mathematician to grasp, even on a fun damental level, at least some of the ideas presented.
If anyone qualifies as a laymen it would be me. I am not eager for any downfall, but I am eager for truth. Truth is the heart of science. We could say "einstein was right. 100% correct and that's all there is to it." and just leave it at that, but we are not. We, humanity, are constantly searching for the greater truth... This IS science.
Why are ATS'ers so fascinated by this idea? because it is exciting and opens up so many new avenues of scientific exploration and discovery. I'd say it's a safe bet that most ATS'ers are, to some degree, sci-fi fans. We want FTL travel. So,, yes, we are open to the idea. Could it be wrong? absolutely, but to say we "laymen" are excited by the downfall is grossly inaccurate. We are more excited by the possibilities.
I understand that it could throw modern physics out of whack and, for those that have an education in such it would mean what they have learned is perhaps incorrect.
It seems to me that the people hoping for a downfall aren't the laymen at all, but those with a vested interest in the status quo. Which, unfortunately, seems to be the M.O. of many scientists. "If it doesn't fit the model, chuck it out.".
The scientists involved even have a wait and see approach. But the seem cautiously optimistic. As far as I can tell both you and I are "laymen" to them.
I agree with you, the vast amounts of data supporting relativity far outweigh this one expiriment, but all it takes is one expiriment. So,, like everyone else, i will wait and see.
Not one of us, laymen or otherwise, can make a judgment yet.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Is it too early to ask for a neutrino propolusion system?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MuchTooSerious
 


In this context, by "layman," I meant anyone not well versed in the mathematical and physical details of Relativity, not necessarily in reference to anyone's general intelligence, their ability to understand, or their earnesty in trying to find answers.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by CAELENIUM
 


They did use synchronised Caesium 133 clocks, and i imagine they took the curvature into consideration.
So the measurements could still be correct.


We always like to assume that the "scientists" take every possibility into consideration when doing their experiments. However, the history of scientific investigation is proof that this is definitely not the case. Therefore I suspect that my solution, simple though it appears to be, nevertheless is the correct one. However, I forgot to mention that I do believe that there are indeed energies that traverse the universe at every speed up to and beyond infinite absolute velocity. By allowing such absolute velocity into our paradigm we would then have explanation for various phenomenon that still cannot be explained such as gravity and magnetism and quantum entanglement and ... and ... the list continues. Scientists might understand the effects of gravity, but unfortunately still have not yet explained the root causes of gravity. Gravity remains a mysterious thing. Quantum entanglement is even more mysterious. Albert Einstein explained the quantum entanglement by his "Folding of the Fabric of Time and Space" theory. Which to our field of reference when looking at it would appear to be "faster than light" communications, when in fact it is no such thing. Just higher dimensionality or as some are calling it "worm holes in space" or "string theory" that are outside of our normal field of reference. This lecture by CARL SAGAN is explaining the fundamental paradigm shift required if we are to understand reality. Unfortunately Carl Sagan died a few years ago. Thankfully his lecture is still with us.



AVE RAEGINA CAELINA LA DEUS NOSTRA CAELI LA VERA DEUS
edit on 23/9/2011 by CAELENIUM because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by CAELENIUM
 


I have to agree with your logic

My own theory (already stated) is that these particles spend some time as energy, where they have unknown speed. Gravity in particular, is THE most fascinating problem, after all



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by jonco6
 


Boredom will do that to you.
I spent 8 years trying to work out an alternative to Relativity. Then, I learned just how powerful Relativity is, and how consistent with observation its mathematical foundation truly is. Once I realized this, I stopped questioning it. I work under the assumption that Relativity is at least a working superficial model, and I will do so until that model is shown to be wrong in some way...if that ever happens.
edit on 23-9-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)


I understand your position completely, but be open to the idea that your mode could be shown to be wrong by this very piece of news. You are sort of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
On one hand you say that this news can't be true but on the other are saying you will work with the relativity model until it is shown to be wrong in some way. Yet you deride this news because it doesn't conform to relativity.
Like: I wont believe it until I see it, but I wont see it because it cant exist. But if it does exist I will change my model. But the model says it can't exist.

Don't get me wrong. I am not getting down on you. You obviously know what you are talking about, but be open to the idea.
You say you spent 8 years trying to find an alternative to relativity. I will infer from this that you are, at the least, some type of genius? No offense meant. i, too, am a certified "genius" (for what it's worth... nothing.) I just think it's bad science to discredit something just because it doesn't fit your model, no matter how well tested your model may be. That is the beauty of science. We are constantly learning new things. Who knows, perhaps relativity isn't the end all be all for physics. It could be a starting off point (as it has proven to be).
The great human fallacy is that we always believe ourselves to be at the pinnacle of understanding. We are most definetely not. We are mere children with much much morre to learn about the universe and it's laws.
After all... it's the THEORY of relativity, not the LAW of relativity... correct?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by MuchTooSerious

I understand your position completely, but be open to the idea that your mode could be shown to be wrong by this very piece of news. You are sort of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


My confidence in this "faster-than-light" result being in error is based on my confidence in the accuracy of Relativity, not on my inability to reject Relativity should fault be found with it.
My confidence in Relativity is directly proportional to the amount of vigorous testing it's been put through in the past century. Just one test confirmed to contradict Relativity will void that.

I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water... you might say I'm dangling the baby off a balcony.



You say you spent 8 years trying to find an alternative to relativity. I will infer from this that you are, at the least, some type of genius? No offense meant. i, too, am a certified "genius" (for what it's worth... nothing.)


I began questioning Relativity when I was 12. I'm no genius. My IQ is in the 99.9 percentile, but this, as you say, amounts to nothing.



I just think it's bad science to discredit something just because it doesn't fit your model, no matter how well tested your model may be.


It is, most certainly, bad science to do so. Let me expand on my position a little bit. Because of the time-tested accuracy of Relativity, I have a great amount of certainty that this experiment is somehow in error. However, in no way do I think that it should be discredited without that error being found. If no error is found, then, as I said before, my confidence in Relativity will drop...dramatically.
edit on 23-9-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonFire1024

CERN claims faster-than-light particle measured


hosted.ap.org

GENEVA (AP) -- Scientists at the world's largest physics lab say they have clocked subatomic particles traveling faster than light. If that's true, it would break - if not severely twist - a fundamental pillar of physics.

Nothing is supposed to go faster than light. But scientists say that neutrinos - one of the strangest well-known particles in physics - smashed past the cosmic speed barrier of 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers).
(visit the link for the full news article)




edit on 22-9-2011 by Maxmars because: PLEASE USE THE ACTUAL SOURCE HEADLINE WHEN SUBMITTING BREAKING ALTERNATIVE NEWS THREADS

Greetings Nano-Particals-Seperated... By dark matter


Famous un-scholarly Jesus quote: "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if the spirit came into being because of the body(scienctist laymen clue:Atom), that is a marvel of marvels".


Mr X-ULTRA/ARTLU... Just saying: Go quantum figure that CERNers need Billions of Digi-Dollars to find God/Orginal Source code/whatever particles. :p

P.S
" You eXamine the face of Heaven&Earth, but you have not come to know the one who is in your present, and you do not know how to eXamine the present moment"... Relatively of course

edit on 23-9-2011 by CosmicWaterGate because: Sometimes the best upgrade... Is a down grade... Maybe Einstein was to smart for the minds of the time




posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
"We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here" said the bartender.

A neutrino walks into a bar.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I have to agree with both of you

Amazing this far into the thread and no trolling or name calling.
Serious rational debate, we need more of it.......



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by MuchTooSerious
 


In this context, by "layman," I meant anyone not well versed in the mathematical and physical details of Relativity, not necessarily in reference to anyone's general intelligence, their ability to understand, or their earnesty in trying to find answers.


even with that qualifier you are making terribly broad suppositions as to the motivations of those excited by this information. Not everyone is well versed in the mathematical and physical details of relativity but that does not make them akin to the townsfolk with pitchforks and torches chasing down frankensteins monster either.
Honestly, I think it's a bit of hubris and ego on the part of thr "well versed". In a way you are saying "you are ignorant so wish to kill that which you don't understand.". To me that is a dangerous way of thinking. i applaud you for your interest and knowledge of relativity. I am absolutely sure you know more about it than I do or will ever. But that does not mean I am afraid of it or wish to tear it down. Do you feel that way about everything you are not well versed in?
You are working with a theory. Science is constantly evolving. You, obviuously a student of science, should be open to information such as this and not simply want to dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't fit your model. What happens if they are correct?
What happenes if FTL is proven?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wobbly Anomaly
"We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here" said the bartender.

A neutrino walks into a bar.
But I have money
... Make it a double please


Mr X-ULTRA/TAB... Quantum drinks for everyone...



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by MuchTooSerious

I understand your position completely, but be open to the idea that your mode could be shown to be wrong by this very piece of news. You are sort of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


My confidence in this "faster-than-light" result being in error is based on my confidence in the accuracy of Relativity, not on my inability to reject Relativity should fault be found with it.
My confidence in Relativity is directly proportional to the amount of vigorous testing it's been put through in the past century. Just one test confirmed to contradict Relativity will void that.

I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water... you might say I'm dangling the baby off a balcony.



You say you spent 8 years trying to find an alternative to relativity. I will infer from this that you are, at the least, some type of genius? No offense meant. i, too, am a certified "genius" (for what it's worth... nothing.)


I began questioning Relativity when I was 12. I'm no genius. My IQ is in the 99.9 percentile, but this, as you say, amounts to nothing.



I just think it's bad science to discredit something just because it doesn't fit your model, no matter how well tested your model may be.


It is, most certainly, bad science to do so. Let me expand on my position a little bit. Because of the time-tested accuracy of Relativity, I have a great amount of certainty that this experiment is somehow in error. However, in no way do I think that it should be discredited without that error being found. If no error is found, then, as I said before, my confidence in Relativity will drop...dramatically.
edit on 23-9-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

Thank you. I am glad you clarified your position.
Please dont take my argument as being anything but discussion.
As i said, i understand your position and the results could very well be wrong, but if they are tru i would hope you would be open to the change in the fundamental understanding of our universe. From your response I can tell you are.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MuchTooSerious

Not everyone is well versed in the mathematical and physical details of relativity but that does not make them akin to the townsfolk with pitchforks and torches chasing down frankensteins monster either.


In all honesty, my statement was, as you called it, a broad supposition - though, I'd prefer to call it hyperbole.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by MuchTooSerious

Not everyone is well versed in the mathematical and physical details of relativity but that does not make them akin to the townsfolk with pitchforks and torches chasing down frankensteins monster either.


In all honesty, my statement was, as you called it, a broad supposition - though, I'd prefer to call it hyperbole.
LUV Urr hard shell lobsters... hope not to offend U if I choose Clearwaters as my choice of best sea bug farmers



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
CERN is just ...well...it is something that I would NOT want to hang out with in the depths of the Earth. Sorry but... all those dollars and for the sake of mankind...just stuuuuupid imho! And...I AM being honest!


This is one of many tests that will have to come and go before I believe it. Just sayin'. I can ponder what may or may not be faster than the speed of light but... I can't find anything observable that may do so.


A neutrino has a lot to prove to me before I think any different.

Either way....Einstein is still one of my hero's. He and I share a lot. We share a birth date. We may have even been born at the same "time" but hey...what is "time"? We also share an interest in time, space and theorizing, although I do hate to admit... I am not mathematically inclined...AT ALL!
edit on 23-9-2011 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by CAELENIUM
 


You ARE joking right??

I just emailed the CERN crew to let them know that the ol' neutrino travels through planets and galaxies without effect and to bear in mind to omit the curvature of the earth in their distance calculations.

Whats puzzled me is that there have been a few reports on these neutrino detectors over the last couple of months that have been fruitless in discovering any cosmic neutrinos, yet this one in Italy can detect them no problem when CERN fire them out. Probably a logical explanation as to why this is possible, I'll wait til i get too niggled and google it.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Iam'___'
 


From what i've just read, they DO get random counts from cosmic neutrino's entering through the walls.
The ones from CERN are pulsed, so they can identify them.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Could it be that mini black holes along the path of the beam have contracted space, and so the beam travelled less distance?

If so, then John Titor was correct.



new topics

top topics



 
142
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join