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: 21
142
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 


No...that's one of three common misconceptions that I'm getting a little tired of

The expansion of space only becomes significant over exceptionally large distances... distances much greater than those over which gravity works. Within gravitational systems (like galaxies, planets, etc.), the inward force of gravity counteracts the outward force of expansion. It's only outside these systems, in intergalactic space, that the expansion is allowed to occur.

I seem to recall explaining this not too long ago in this very thread. Oh yeah, that's right. I did. Funny, QueenofWeird got it.
Anyway, there it is again.




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


So what is causing this expansion?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 


Go to my post I linked and keep reading the posts below it. Pay special attention to the conversation between you and I. If you look closely, you'll find I've already answered this question.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I will elaborate on that question;
As we know, the universe is expanding as a result of some 'big bang', we are led to beleive.
However, this expansion appears to be accelerating, and there could only be a few reasons for this.
1 That gavity actually works in a non-linear fashion over distance, not really practical.
2. There is an as yet unseen force, driving this, call it 'reverse gravity' or 'vacuum implosion' if you will
3. That the 'something' in the universe is being pulled towards the 'nothing' by some kind of brownian/entropy system, such as presented here somewhere.
So you support option 3 i take it?
Just asking.
edit on 24-9-2011 by playswithmachines because: Typo



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Just be be clear. The margin of error being claim as higher than initially though is still:

error + c < measured result

This means that the speed measured is significantly high enough to rule out error.

Besides CERN OPERA discovered this months ago and since then they`ve checked and rechecked the systems and calculations.

This is huge!

Everything Einstein and related to Einstein is now suspect. Perhaps now science can move forward after 100 years of stagnation due to an assumption.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Yes i have read your posts, but HOW do you collapse a vacuum?
Reduce it to it's lowest energy level? Energy only reacts with mass....
The only possible energy field available in, as you say, a vacuum, is ZPE.
Are you saying that ZPE is the expansion field, or in some way responsible for it?
This 'inflation field' MUST have an energy source, and it SHOULD be measurable.
Gravity works over extreme distances, i don't see any evidence that it 'slows down' or reverses in some way.
All these forces are attractive, not repulsive, with the exception of charge.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 


Here's a quick overview of what I think (which is aligned with current theory):

- the Big Bang is an outdated term
- there was no initial "explosion"
- there was an initial period of rapid inflation
- this inflation was caused by the spontaneous collapse of the vacuum within the initial universe (which could have been infinite in size...infinite and completely empty)
- the inflation field (that is, the energy released by the collapse of the initial vacuum) "cooled" to form matter, and the initial rapid inflation ceased
- inflation stopped, but expansion continued because vacuum still exists in the universe, and it is still capable of spontaneous collapse
- expansion is a lot weaker than gravity over similar distances
- as the universe continues to expand, the regions of gravity (that is, regions of mass) get smaller relative to the overall size of the universe
- as the regions of gravity get relatively smaller, the force of expansion (the collapse of the vacuum) overtakes the force of gravity over large, intergalactic distances, which leads to accelerated expansion
- and, once again, galaxies and other gravitational systems don't expand because, over these local distances, gravity is still stronger than the force of expansion


How do you collapse a vacuum? You don't. It happens spontaneously within Quantum Mechanics.
edit on 24-9-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by CantSay
 


There are 2 other facilities on Earth that can reproduce this experiment, it would be nice if they did just that.
Then the cat would be out of the bag for good



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 

We know - we are in a timeloop. right? read this > blogs.scientificamerican.com...
' Space is pulling a bait-and-switch on us: it seems to have plenty of room to hold stuff, yet it doesn’t. The Holographic Principle is one of several clues suggesting that the concept of “space” is an elaborate illusion—or, to be more precise, that it emerges from a deeper spaceless reality, much as living organisms emerge from inanimate matter. '
Now about.... The Uncertainty Principle www.scientificamerican.com...
here - ' Gordon then considers the second part of the question: "One significant test of the Heisenberg principle can be thought of in philosophical terms: Let's say we could measure both the position and velocity of every sub-atomic particle with infinite accuracy. Then we could measure the position and velocity of every particle in your body, and predict the future positions and velocities of every particle in your body. In other words, we could predict exactly what you are going to do for the indefinite future; you would have a deterministic world which precludes free will. The Uncertainty Principle is the physical reason why free will is possible. Even with infinitely accurate instruments, we cannot predict the future actions of sub-atomic particles, and therefore we cannot predict the future of macroscopic particles (like people) either." '
edit on 24-9-2011 by nii900 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Ah, i see...
But i'm having trouble with this statement;



this inflation was caused by the spontaneous collapse of the vacuum within the initial universe (which could have been infinite in size...infinite and completely empty)

And the following one where all this energy is released & 'cooled' to form matter.
Yes, matter & energy are interchangeable, that's why i said E=M and forget the C^2
And yes, thermodynamics states that energy will flow to the lowest level from a higher one.
I can see where you are heading, but doesn't Thermodynamics conflict with ZPE theory?
Sorry, but i have my own theory which differs somewhat from yours, and i will need to see if there is a solution....
edit on 24-9-2011 by playswithmachines because: Keyboard terminally ill...



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 


What's the trouble you're having with those two points?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by nii900
 


You have a point, that's why the Enterprise transporter had 'Heisenberg compensators'-wow, these Hollywood types think of everything

This is coming from Hawking's 'free will or determination' lecture, i've got it here somewhere if anyone's interested?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


That a vacuum can 'implode'
And that it defies all principles by doing so.
I will rephrase that;
How can 'nothing' condense into 'something' unless there are higher dimensions involved, is that what you mean?
edit on 24-9-2011 by playswithmachines because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 


What "principles" does a vacuum defy by "imploding"?
Yesterday, you told me you understood the concept of the QM vacuum. Do you really? Because it violates nothing... it's a direct result of the quantum state and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

ETA: No, that's not what I mean. That actually answers my second question.
edit on 24-9-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


First, let me read some literature on this 'QM vacuum'
At this rate, even N theory is a better option

I said i understood that there is energy present even in a vacuum, not the same thing.
edit on 24-9-2011 by playswithmachines because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 


Here's a good basic description from HowStuffWorks:

The Expansion of the False Vacuum

And then there's this:

Inflationary Cosmology
edit on 24-9-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Interesting, but;



Nonetheless, the theory of inflation is not the final word in cosmology, for at least three reasons. First, although inflation describes the universe at an extraordinarily early moment in time, it does not explain the actual origin of the universe—time zero. Second, inflation is not a unique theory, but rather a class of theories. Most of the versions present the same basic scenario of the early universe, but they differ in their details. There was still much work to be done in 1997 to determine which version of the theory, if any, is correct. And third, though inflation is a persuasive theory, decisive tests of its predictions were still needed.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
The Universe was never "empty", all mass is formed by a contraction of the electric poles. The Aether is the "Quantum foam", the "Dirac sea", whatever you want to call it and is full of charges in constant "Flux".

The charges build to potentials through resonance and harmonics which causes the contraction of the electric poles and mass is formed from electricity basically or "charge" or "potential". Everything is in perfect harmony pretty much, because that is how it formed through harmony, harmonics.

Everything is constantly trying to equalise it's potential energy but in doing so cause another imballance which then tries to equalise and so-forth.

Einstein managed to hide all this stuff from us, it's fairly simple really.

Basically in the begining of this "cycle" or instance of the universe there was the "Aether", a primordial soup of energy from which all and everything sprung forth. No need for complicated mumbo jumbo.

The guys at CERN know this but there is no money or funding in it for them, to admit it. They'll only ever give us enough useless information to keep the funding going their way.

The Electric Universe is real and we are living in it.
Cheers



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Toecutter.
 

i dunno really but
i can not call this - a universe -



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 


Inflation cosmology is still being developed, and it's only a piece of the puzzle. It can't explain the origins of the universe because it wasn't meant to. It's still being tested because it's relatively new. It has several versions because, again, it's relatively new. That's what observation is for. Further observation will further refine inflation cosmology... or it'll show it to be wrong. Either way, we move forward.



new topics

top topics



 
142
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join