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: 20
142
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by consciousgod
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)


Special Relativity has been generalized to include objects that travel faster than light. Contrary to popular misconception, it does not forbid the existence of particles that move permanently faster than light (so-called tachyons). It merely disallows particles that are travelling slower than light accelerating above it because their energy of motion increases to infinity as the light barrier is reached. The Lorentz transformations have been modified to apply to tachyons. The argument that they violate causality can be circumvented by interpreting a tachyon travelling back in time as an anti-tachyon travelling forward in time.

My view is that the CERN measurements contain errors that have not yet been identified.




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   
I've always felt like there's so much we still don't know, humanity has been here only for a split second in the grand scheme of things, we possibly can't know everything and i certainly don't believe a theory only 200 years old is the say so of everything possible, we are discovering new things all the time, things we still don't understand even now so i think its absolutely possible that we can travel many times faster than the speed of light, it's just going to take time to really discover it, work out the building blocks of our universe and everything that surrounds us.




Physicists on the experiment, called OPERA after the initials of its formal scientific title, say they had checked and rechecked over many months anything that could have produced a misreading before announcing what they had found




OPERA's Dario Auterio, presenting the findings to a packed and clearly sceptical auditorium at CERN on Friday, said they were of "high statistical accuracy" and could not be explained by extraneous effects such as seismic tremors or moon phases.

Because of the above quote, i find it quite hard to believe that the findings could be an error, if it was found then instantly announced then maybe, but like it says, they have checked and rechecked for many months to make sure the findings are true.
edit on 24-9-2011 by Itop1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-9-2011 by Itop1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
This 200 year old theory, is correct ... why?

Because it made possible to create all the things we have today. TV, Satellite, Rockets ...the nuclear bomb.

Currently, the pace is slowing down ... because there are a lot of "inventions", that are illusions. Lot of science, that is illusion. Just like Wikipedia, helps hide information on the internet ... by providing an alternative search, that has a higher rank. This kind of data, is measuring something, that we don't have the technology to measure. We don't have the technology to measure lightspeed ... but now we suddenly measured something, that goes beyond lightspeed.

I take this with a grain of salt, and it's like quarks, wormholes and other stuff ... it's suited more suitet for science fiction than reality.

Ladies, and Gentlemen ... we are now starting the walk down that road of religion and not science. This is just one path, that is leading people astray ... "I found the God element", research. It took us 2000 years, to restart where the Greeks went off ... and now we are starting on the same path, off course ...


edit on 24-9-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


Pillock. Quarks exist , they are not imagination. Who the hell did you hear that nonsense from? Check your work!!!!!



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by robomont
 


Did you thought about the fact that you move with the same speed that earth does? So to let the solar system fly by, you have to deaccelerate. and this needs energy too (in the void without gravity)

if earth moves in this ->> direction and you start to move away from earth in this



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
We have two identical clocks, A and B.

One is moving in respect to the other.

One must work slower than the other.

The theory requires that there is no distinction between which is the one moving.

It's the same as saying A is moving towards B or B is moving towards A. There's no distinction.

So which clock runs more slowly?

The theory requires A to run slower than B and B to run slower than A. Which is of course ABSURD!

If your familiar with the question you'd probably know that it has no consistant answer and in my opinion has never been answered. Surely such an elegant theory should provide a logical simple answer, however logic is not a requirement and in fact has to be left at the door when it comes to SR.

How does the experimental verification account for this illogical problem that exists within SR ?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
The theory requires A to run slower than B and B to run slower than A. Which is of course ABSURD!
Even Einstein admitted that relativity had some consequences that seem non-intuitive for some people. But they've been proven enough to give us confidence in the theory.

You aren't thinking relativistically, meaning the observation of which clock runs slower is not absolute. it depends on your frame of reference. You seem to think there's a preferred frame of reference, but that's a false assumption which causes you to not be able to answer the simple question.

That preferred reference frame was part of Lorentzian relativity, and one of Einstein's accomplishments was throwing out the preferred reference frame. Einstein said there isn't one and observations seem to prove him right.

So yes, as odd as it seems, your absurd observation is true. Both clocks appear to run slower, depending on where you observe them from. The answer to your question is, everything you observe is relative to your reference frame of observation, hence, the term "relativity".


Here's a more technical explanation if you prefer that:
casa.colorado.edu...

Vermilion thinks Cerulean's clock runs slow. But of course from Cerulean's perspective it is Vermilion who is moving, and Vermilion whose clock runs slow. How can both think the other's clock runs slow? Paradox!

The resolution of the paradox, as usual in special relativity, involves simultaneity, and as usual it helps to draw a spacetime diagram, such as this one from the Centre of the Lightcone page.
The diagram at that link might help explain it, but only if you understand spacetime diagrams.
edit on 24-9-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Boy, I am glad I found ATS forums. Growing up, my mother would read me epics from our ancient civilization that made me wonder. Now with all of the advancement that science is making, all of those "events" described in the epics seem to be reality that was for some reason wiped out from the face of the earth.

Regarding the topic at hand, this is just the start. All our science is based upon vision, touch and feel. No wonder we limit ourselves to the "light". How can we assume that nothing travels faster than light? 'simply because we cannot? It is only a human limitation. for now. I have great respect for the scientists, but most like other humans stop exploring at some point in time and put all their efforts in establishing and re-establishing what they have learnt and proven in their lifetime. Kudos to the new comers who challenge the existing theories and break new grounds.

I would expect that these scientists would attempt to repeat their feat numerous times in order to arrive at a statistically acceptable result, rather than only dissecting this "one" attempt 1000 different ways in order to ensure all parameters and measurements were per design of the experiment.

To me the neutrino is much close to the millenia old concept of Prana. "In Vedantic philosophy, Prana is the notion of a vital, life-sustaining force of living beings and vital energy." I may be on the right track or not, but it sure is exciting to see this happen!

Thanks!
edit on 24-9-2011 by theresmore because: edit errors.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Aha, I see. But do galaxies move as a whole in space? I mean actual movement, not space being stretched? The Earth really moves around its axis, around the sun and our solarsystem (and the rest) around the centre of the Milky Way.

And besides, is space being stretched or does it grow?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by QueenofWeird
 


Yes, they do. Galaxies have measurable proper motion (which is actual motion...as opposed to the illusion of motion caused by the expansion of space). This proper motion is typically measured with respect to the Cosmic Microwave Background, which gives a uniform point of reference.

As for whether space is stretched or growing... well, that might be a matter of semantics. The current theory says that each point in space, essentially, is causing itself to stretch by the presence of some form of anti-gravitational force (whether dark energy, or vacuum decay...which might very well be the same thing). So, you might say each point in space is growing. Or, you could say it's being stretched from the inside. That's why, in astrophysics, it's "simply" called a metric expansion.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by theresmore
I have great respect for the scientists, but most like other humans stop exploring at some point in time and put all their efforts in establishing and re-establishing what they have learnt and proven in their lifetime.


A completely unfounded statement!


To me the neutrino is much close to the millenia old concept of Prana. "In Vedantic philosophy, Prana is the notion of a vital, life-sustaining force of living beings and vital energy." I may be on the right track or not,


No you are not. An arbitrary statement with no merit.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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


No1 has any right to blunt here including you 2 Lol guys / gals / webbots.
You would do well and break out some ID and evidence of your alleged Phds or whatever



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
What a problem!!

We don't need to prove Einstein theories!

Maybe we must revise the Whole Scientific Method!!

Frami



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Laplace
Fourier
Computer models.
But it gets worse;
"generalised scalar function"
AND they seem to have misquoted the Heaviside function.
Apart from that i can believe it.........
I always thought if you are going to generalise, just say that the opposite of entropy is energy, as any child who has to clean up their room, knows.
edit on 24-9-2011 by playswithmachines because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroGhost
 


Thanks for posting that, still reading

Niels Bohr, in particular is worth noting, because his 'precessional' model of the atom, i.e. one powered by angular momentum, is as far as i know, universally accepted.
Rotation, gentlemen, is the key word here, it links things previously unlinkable



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnocksMeDead
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

IF it is proven, it will turn just about every physical theory on it's head.
It means they can reprint billions of books & scrap 10,000 degree courses, it means they will have to start again.
However, there are many exceptions & alternative theories, which not only predicted this, they might actually be the real ones. Whatever 'real' is



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I think i have changed my mind, i think that CERN needed some badly needed publicity after failing to find that Higgs-Boson thingy

It would be worth faking this in order to secure next year's funding.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by QueenofWeird
 


Yes, they do. Galaxies have measurable proper motion (which is actual motion...as opposed to the illusion of motion caused by the expansion of space). This proper motion is typically measured with respect to the Cosmic Microwave Background, which gives a uniform point of reference.

As for whether space is stretched or growing... well, that might be a matter of semantics. The current theory says that each point in space, essentially, is causing itself to stretch by the presence of some form of anti-gravitational force (whether dark energy, or vacuum decay...which might very well be the same thing). So, you might say each point in space is growing. Or, you could say it's being stretched from the inside. That's why, in astrophysics, it's "simply" called a metric expansion.

Interesting, if the expansion is metric, or incremental, i.e. every portion of space is expanding, then the galaxies & stars within them would also be expanding. I don't see any evidence for this.
So it's back to the 'reverse gravity effect' which i personally do not believe in.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by theresmore
I have great respect for the scientists, but most like other humans stop exploring at some point in time and put all their efforts in establishing and re-establishing what they have learnt and proven in their lifetime.


A completely unfounded statement!


To me the neutrino is much close to the millenia old concept of Prana. "In Vedantic philosophy, Prana is the notion of a vital, life-sustaining force of living beings and vital energy." I may be on the right track or not,


No you are not. An arbitrary statement with no merit.


Exactly my point. If I was a scientist who follows the scientific rules and only speaks on subjects which can stand on their own merit, trust me, I would not be posting here. I would be elsewhere !!!

Regarding the scientists, this has been my observation. I cannot, and neither can you expect me to do a full time research job on finding the exact number of scientists who after their prime time, are still pushing the boundaries. This is just my observation. How many scientists with ground breaking discoveries to their claim do we see repeat that feat again and again? How come Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, but never came up with a newer theory which might have proved it wrong (or invalid) himself in his own lifetime? We are still waiting for some scientist to do that. And it will happen, sometime.

I am not being hard headed here. just discussing my observations.



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

Originally posted by frami12
What a problem!!

We don't need to prove Einstein theories!

Maybe we must revise the Whole Scientific Method!!

Frami

dunno..after all these old / new discovries no wonder one had to wonder where all these things come from



new topics

top topics



 
142
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join