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: 19
142
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 


Thanking you for clearing that one up.

Doing a sterling job on mopping up the answers on this thread btw, you and CLPrime (there maybe more but i haven't read the full thread yet). Its good to see people delivering answers without being baited into arguments, let this be a template to others (self inc.).




posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
So, if it's not experimental error, we can move faster than the speed of light AND travel backwards/sideways in time.

I'm leaving on a warp plane, don't know when I'll be back again...



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I found it interesting that some of the theories postulate the particle moves in and out of dimensions on it's path, accounting for the speed surpassing that of light. Cheating the limit.

Some of the most believable and credible people who have had contact with extraterrestrials and have been briefed on the subject of propulsion and how such craft work, claim they use those neighboring dimensions to traverse great distances in faster than light ways. It is at least an interesting correlation.

Also, as such a craft/object changes dimensions, your image might distort, turn into multiple duplicates or otherwise have very anomalous outward effects to an observer in the universe such a craft/object is exiting. So this might start to explain some of the strange effects and superposition observations recorded by the thousands of UFO reports.

Yea, I know, bringing this into a UFO subject might be abhorrent to some, but for those who know better, it is quite an interesting corroboration in the science model.

Some interesting ideas here

ZG



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
nobody will convince me that aliens are coming and going freely.

If anyone can prove that to me, then I will instantly concede that aliens lie.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


No my friend not ANYTHING is possible... Thermodynamics is as rock solid as science gets and it dictates that entropy rules our universe. You can not quantify possibilities that exist beyond our space/time.

While I want to believe in parallel universes extra dimensions and the entire buffet of exotic scientific speculation you can't logically argue that anything is possible.

As I said before you can not reverse entropy, therefor there is at least one thing that is impossible. Use your noodle
I'm sure you can think of some others.



"You can't just assume things"



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by constantwonder
As I said before you can not reverse entropy, therefor there is at least one thing that is impossible. Use your noodle
I'm sure you can think of some others.
Actually, you can. Just like you can get a royal flush in a game of poker. Both the reverse entropy and the royal flush would be an extremely rare occurrence, but they can happen on occasion.

Does the second law of thermodynamics really hold good without exception?
I've seen other discussions about entropy exceptions too, but they seem fairly trivial to me, like just statistical anomalies that can happen statistically in any system.

However I've never seen any exceptions to the velocity of light proven, and this neutrino case falls short of proof. So I agree with your basic premise that based on our observations, we have at least some evidence to contradict the assertion that anything is possible. Our measurements and observations at least suggest that's probably not the case.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Not to nit pick but your article states that it they "postulate" the outcome and that a simple experiment "suggests" that the effect is allowed to take place...

I would be interested in seeing another paper or observation of this... I can't seem to find one.

Thanks in advance


CW



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by constantwonder
As I said before you can not reverse entropy, therefor there is at least one thing that is impossible. Use your noodle
I'm sure you can think of some others.
Actually, you can. Just like you can get a royal flush in a game of poker. Both the reverse entropy and the royal flush would be an extremely rare occurrence, but they can happen on occasion.

Does the second law of thermodynamics really hold good without exception?
I've seen other discussions about entropy exceptions too, but they seem fairly trivial to me, like just statistical anomalies that can happen statistically in any system.

However I've never seen any exceptions to the velocity of light proven, and this neutrino case falls short of proof. So I agree with your basic premise that based on our observations, we have at least some evidence to contradict the assertion that anything is possible. Our measurements and observations at least suggest that's probably not the case.



I have heard the royal flush being so rare... how does a hand in a 52 deck of cards become so rare. i will never understand this probability despite the fact that I could possibly add it up in my head.... and im not good at math.

the probability doesn't seem to add up so i am thinking there must also be a factor of repulsion among these particular cards... or something... but anyway.

btw... is your avatar supposed to be like a brown dwarf or giant molecular cloud... or a giant space hamster?
edit on 23-9-2011 by BlackSatinDancer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
oh dear god... the pharmaceutical companies... ALL THOSE CRUEL EXPERIMENTS!... The teasing...Are you a man or a mouse...OH THE IRONY!!!

Remember the black plague?

DO YOU REMEMBER THE PLAGUE?!!



It's back.

IT'S BACK.

IT'S THE GIANT RODENT DEMIGOD!!!

people... we are in trouble.
edit on 23-9-2011 by BlackSatinDancer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by constantwonder
I would be interested in seeing another paper or observation of this... I can't seem to find one.

Thanks in advance
CW
I said there were other references so of course I'm glad to provide something for you. You can calculate the odds of getting a royal flush without experimentally ever playing a single hand of poker, and theoretically your statistical predictions should be accurate but of course it's hard to verify an exact number in experiment when probabilities are so low. Statistics can work similarly in entropy but it has supposedly been experimentally verified:


Experimental Demonstration of Violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics for Small Systems and Short Time Scales

We experimentally demonstrate the fluctuation theorem, which predicts appreciable and measurable violations of the second law of thermodynamics for small systems over short time scales, by following the trajectory of a colloidal particle captured in an optical trap that is translated relative to surrounding water molecules. From each particle trajectory, we calculate the entropy production/consumption over the duration of the trajectory and determine the fraction of second law–defying trajectories. Our results show entropy consumption can occur over colloidal length and time scales.

If you really want to learn more about this, you can study Fluctuation theorem


The fluctuation theorem (FT), which originated from statistical mechanics, deals with the relative probability that the entropy of a system which is currently away from thermodynamic equilibrium (i.e., maximum entropy) will increase or decrease over a given amount of time. While the second law of thermodynamics predicts that the entropy of an isolated system should tend to increase until it reaches equilibrium, it became apparent after the discovery of statistical mechanics that the second law is only a statistical one, suggesting that there should always be some nonzero probability that the entropy of an isolated system might spontaneously decrease; the fluctuation theorem precisely quantifies this probability.


So there's some sound statistical theory behind it, apparently confirmed with observation and experiment.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
if we know the speed of light, whats the speed of dark?




posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedarktower
if we know the speed of light, whats the speed of dark?



Everybody knows that it's dark... because yer parked!



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


I am a firm believer in breaking things down to the most recognizable point. Your post accomplished this and in oing so, enhances this community. It seems like a miniscule number, but if this is in fact a legitimate find then the reperussions will be astounding.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 


It was always theorized that they could and there are reasons as to why as well.

Detecting them was the problem.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
remember what Einstein said about the laws ?

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality"



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   
So how is it going to affect the law of physics? Is it because of E = mc^2 ? how is this going affect other laws of physics ? Someone shed some light for me ?

Cheers



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

I've done my share of physics education. You obviously lack that.



Prove it. You are as usual attacking ever1 on here
Go ahd and prove that ur more than wiki informed.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
I didn't read through every page, so I'm not sure if anyone else noticed this, but I'm pretty sure a lot of the community has been aware of the discovery of certain radio waves traveling faster than light... I couldn't find any quick definitive sources for what I've read into tesla's research (where I remember reading into his case for faster than light particles), but I did find this thread below on the case for radio waves traveling faster than light... Although this is why I like CERN, when they do something, everyone notices.


Scientists make radio waves travel faster than light



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerForLight
I didn't read through every page, so I'm not sure if anyone else noticed this, but I'm pretty sure a lot of the community has been aware of the discovery of certain radio waves traveling faster than light...

Scientists make radio waves travel faster than light
No the community is not aware of that because it didn't happen.

I can sympathize with your dilemma somewhat in not reading this thread, or even that thread you linked to where the first 8 pages consist mostly of ignorant posts by ignorant people who either couldn't or didn't even read and understand the article the OP references. Even the article admits the title is a lie when you read it, but either nobody did read it, or if they did read it, they didn't have the brainpower to understand it. It wasn't until Astyanax posted on page 9 of that thread that the lying thread title was exposed. Really, that's one of the most embarrassing threads on ATS, that it took 9 pages to expose the fraud. Even this thread did a much better job of pointing out that this research is far from a done deal. It may be hard and time consuming to read a thread and all that, but maybe, just maybe, you should read the thread before you claim it shows something it doesn't. And it you read nothing else, at least read the Astyanax post on page 9. Astyanax is one of the more knowledgeable members on ATS, along with buddhasystem and others.


Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Prove it. You are as usual attacking ever1 on here
Go ahd and prove that ur more than wiki informed.
You see it as an attack. I see it as being blunt and calling it as he sees it. Physics was one of my majors as a university undergraduate, and buddhasystem's posts on ATS demonstrate he has a higher knowledge of physics than I do, so when he says he has a PhD, I see no reason to doubt it. However if you made that claim I'd have ample reason to doubt it. You tend to make claims that you aren't able to back up with evidence. The ability to back up claims with evidence is one of the traits of a good scientist.

edit on 24-9-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   
If quantum particles can travel at light speed and faster, how come these particles mass isn't infinite. It seems an electron traveling at the speed of light should do so according to the Lorentz Transformations and the electrons mass should be infinite, but it's not. Doesn't this automatically disprove Einstein without having to exceed the speed of light?
edit on 24-9-2011 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
142
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join