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: 28
142
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by hudsonhawk69
 


Basically:
What absorbs and emits photons? Electrons.
What exists between electrons, and all other particles? Void.
What is that void? A vacuum.

Photons only exist in locations devoid of other particles. Therefore, they only exist in a vacuum.
So, there is no other speed of light other than its speed through a vacuum.

What you think is a differing speed of light through different media is, in fact, a result of how fast electrons in each medium absorb and re-emit photons (well...it's actually a little more complicated than that, involving the difference between phase and group velocity, but that's the basic idea).

Again, the speed of light through a vacuum is its only speed because light only travels through a vacuum.


Wow! I don't know where to begin to start explaining the issues with that quote. Perhaps I need to go to university for many years and become completely indoctrinated like you untill I am no longer able to accept new theorys that may conflict with my current world view.




posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by hudsonhawk69
 


At what point were we discussing new theories?
The discussion was on whether or not there's a reason the speed of light must be constant. The answer is yes, according to Maxwell's equations, it must be constant according to all observers, under all circumstances, in all reference frames. This includes media other than a vacuum because photons do not "travel through" different media...they travel through a vacuum, and are absorbed and re-emitted by electrons within different media.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
This topic reminds me of this part in the movie K-pax starring Kevin Spacey where his character Prot talks about FTL. Sorry about vid quality, but point does come across



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by hudsonhawk69
 


At what point were we discussing new theories?
The discussion was on whether or not there's a reason the speed of light must be constant. The answer is yes, according to Maxwell's equations, it must be constant according to all observers, under all circumstances, in all reference frames. This includes media other than a vacuum because photons do not "travel through" different media...they travel through a vacuum, and are absorbed and re-emitted by electrons within different media.


Of course... and the speed of light is a constant and nothing travels faster than light... OH!.. that's right...

(add nutrinos here.)

I respect your opinion that the theory of the speed of light is a constant. You did quote some very convicing maths that must make it true. Scientific theories like the speed of light are just that... Theories. To assume that the speed of light is a constant and remains unchanged in our small and limited understanding of the topic is negligent to say the least. There was a time when scientists believed that the world was flat.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
hmmm ....whats the difference between particles that make there and are the - stimulus -or, harmonic manifestations in the fravtal or 'no time of time' - ie.domines - of em interactions?
.. their sinq? all tru or out of >timespace



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by hudsonhawk69
 
>"There was a time when scientists believed that the world was flat."
?
isnt it funny - the world is an illusion that is actual touchable hollo-graphi-c illusion in 3D +1
the time - which is not flat at all - so thats what we are having now

does teraj mean father of noa- or brightness that made us all in here


edit on 3-10-2011 by nii900 because: (no reason given)

.repeatedly..www.merriam-webster.com...
we call it earth
290 posts
edit on 3-10-2011 by nii900 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-10-2011 by nii900 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-10-2011 by nii900 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69

Of course... and the speed of light is a constant and nothing travels faster than light... OH!.. that's right...

(add nutrinos here.)


Even though the experiment was repeated by the same group, it's still an isolated incident (it needs to be independently confirmed), and it is more than likely a systematic error.



To assume that the speed of light is a constant and remains unchanged in our small and limited understanding of the topic is negligent to say the least.


What else are we supposed to do when we have no possible way of observing the workings of the entire universe? Are we supposed to leave the slate clean until we find the answer to every question we have about how things work? Or should be make best-guesses along the way, while leaving room for the possibility of being wrong? Science is about forging a path to the truth...it's not about keeping our eyes closed and our hands clean until we finally get to the truth.



There was a time when scientists believed that the world was flat.


Actually, science has never said the world is flat. Science saw the curvature of the Earth and calculated its diameter (crudely, but still...). Science said a ship could sail from Europe to India.
Science has never believed the world to be flat.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by warsight
 

a meter


5D

道 Dào
[ /size]


www.tao-te-king.org...
English analogous + German sinngemäß



Schöpferisches Nichts


Dreißig Speichen laufen in einer Nabe zusammen: gerade durch das, was nicht ist, wird das Rad brauchbar.

Knete Ton und höhle es zum Gefäß aus: gerade da, wo nichts ist, wird das Gefäß verwendbar.

Fenster und Türen werden ausgestemmt, wodurch ein Wohnraum entsteht: gerade durch das, was nicht ist, wird der Raum bewohnbar.

Daher gilt: das Sein bewirkt Vorteile, das Nichts aber bewirkt deren Verwendbarkeit.




Creative Nothingness


Thirty spokes run together in a hub: through that which is not, the wheel becomes usable.

Mould clay to form a hollow vessel: just there where there is nothing, the vessel becomes usable.

Chisel out windows and doors and a living space has been created: through that which is not, the space becomes inhabitable.

Therefore: being has advantages, non-being makes them usable.


Wáng Bì


11

三十幅共一轂,
當其無,
有車之用。
埏埴以為器,
當其無,
有器之用。
鑿戶牖以為室,
當其無,
有室之用。
故有之以為利,
無之以為用。

Text



light)
.....virāj with 30 akşharās
Anuşhţubh (32)

Jagatī (48)
atijagatī (52)

www.vedah.com...
".....a metre by name virāj with 30 akşharās (syllables). This metre is not found in the Rig Veda Samhitā.

Even though the number of syllables in a verse of Gāyatrī metre is 24, the famous Gāyatrī mantra RV (3.62.10) has
only 23 letters, the metre
..... being called
........... nichŗt gāyatrī.

living
air spokensanskrit.de...
"
edit on 3-10-2011 by nii900 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-10-2011 by nii900 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69

Wow! I don't know where to begin to start explaining the issues with that quote. Perhaps I need to go to university for many years and become completely indoctrinated like you untill I am no longer able to accept new theorys that may conflict with my current world view.


Well said and a very profounf statement.
Although there are some, though indoctrinated by mainstream,
are breaking out and thinking out of the box.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by CantSay
Being a scientist, I think I know the scientific method quite well. I also know the philosophy behind it and that ultimately all data is interpreted the best way we can based on what we cumulatively know - be it our current knowledge of mathematics or of associated physical phenomena that we use to interpret the data.


How does that support your claim that science is mostly interpretation of data? There are realms of science in both theory and experiment that have little to do with "interpretation of data". Yes, data is used to decide whether a theory is worth considering, but there is so much more going on.



For example, the belief of having data support a theory by modifying the theory to support the data


Example?


or having the data invalidate the theory in order to replace the theory.


Wait, if data was double or triple checked, and theory doesn't square with it, it's not correct. You told me you knew how scientific method works.


How that decision is made, and how we go about it, is based on beliefs which affect the interpretation of the data.


If a theory tells me that a voltage at a particular point in a circuit must be 3V, and I measure consistently 7V, how much belief goes into my decision making?


There are a lot of pressures in science outside of the scientific method that affect the scientific method, like having a level of uncertainty but publicly claiming it's almost exact in order to get funding.


I've never heard of claims being doctored when speaking to funding agencies. You'd be crucified to making such move. When the LHC construction was being funded, nobody said that there is a Swiss bank guarantee that the Higgs particle would be found. In fact, there were, and are, many other possibilities.


Semantics my friend. Read most published material in the last 50 years. It states that the speed of light is either constant, a limit or both. Most probable hypothesis is what a scientist should know, but due to semantics, it's not what's written which in turn forms belief, especially given the longevity of the assumption.


Semantics indeed. In this case, you used it to obfuscate the subject. Really, imagine that every formula in every book which contains "c" would have a lengthy footnote attached to it, stating that the value and constant nature of speed of light is a theory, not a fact.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 


Ive always been behind Einstein's view of relativity. I still blieve that the speed of light cant be broken but Ive seen a couple documentaries on wormholes and the possibility of how the universe could create a temporary one to compensate for anything about to break the barrier. Im wondering if they will test for this or even have the equipment to do so...



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
No one bothered to look at all the evidence then???

Il assume not...so heres some information you may find interesting.

Neutrinos...DO NOT travel faster than light...FACT!
The experiment is wrong, i dont know where they went wrong but they are out by 50+ nanoseconds.

When Supernova1987A was observed they discovered neutrinos first (3 hours before photons). Photons bounced around for a while as the explosion was optically thick, the neutrinos went straight through.

Had the neutrinos been traveling faster than than light..even by 50 nonoseconds...they would have reached us 3.2 years BEFORE the photons.

The experiment is a dud. They messed it up somewhere, maybe they miscalculated the rotation of the earth or the equipment was faulty.

Neutrinos have mass (albeit small but thats why they oscillate)...photons dont, hence they travel at the speed of light...the unbreakable speed limit of our universe.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
A new paper published by physicist at Boston University claims the neutrinos never went faster than the speed of light.


Andrew Cohen and Sheldon Glashow of Boston University calculate that any neutrinos traveling faster than light would radiate energy away, leaving a wake of slower particles analogous to the sonic boom of a supersonic fighter jet.


blogs.scientificamerican.com...

They describe how electron-positron pairs would have been observed as the neutrinos approached superluminal (faster than the speed of light) speeds.

The published paper can be found here (warning: lots of equations found here may damage your brain):

arxiv.org...

So, Einstein can rest easy for now. Or can he?

Some are claiming that the neutrino actually jumped into another dimension and took a shortcut making it appear it moved faster than the speed of light. String theory says there are about 11 dimensions.


Some physicists have suggested that neutrinos could be finding shortcuts in spacetime–for example, by moving in extra dimensions of space–that would allow them to get there faster while still respecting the speed limit.


Yep, so Einstein is still right. It didn't move faster than the speed of light it just took a shortcut through another dimension.

The simplest explanation is still measurement or experimental error with regards to the original claim.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy

No one bothered to look at all the evidence then???


We have. You must have missed it.
What you posted has been mentioned several times. What's happened is certain people have chosen to ignore it. You know...what usually happens.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel




Yep, so Einstein is still right. It didn't move faster than the speed of light it just took a shortcut through another dimension.

The simplest explanation is still measurement or experimental error with regards to the original claim.


The neutrino is in superposition. The neutrino becomes a possibility in all times and only becomes fixed in our perception of reality when a human chooses to measure/observe the neutrino . This dimension is the second dimension of time that is located at a right angle to spacetime. Let's call this alpha time. This is the place where matter goes when it is time cloaked in this article.

www.technologyreview.com...

MIT provides evidence that matter can exist outside our perception of reality in the above article.

Since humans can only perceive one dimension of time, humans cannot observe events in superposition in alpha time. For example, if two coordinates are required to define a place in two dimensional space, then two coordinates are required to define a position in two dimensional time. Let's call these coordinates "a" for alpha time and "t" for proper time. Any instance in time is then shown as (t, a). t corresponds to time on our clock. We can only perceive matter in our reality with coordinates (t, 0). When "a" is not equal to zero, we cannot observe or measure the matter because the matter is just a possibility and doesn't exist in our perception of reality.

It is only when the choice is made to observe the matter that its position in time changes to (t, 0) and becomes fixed in our reality.

This may be the same place the particles go and come from in the double slit experiment. Matter is a wave in superposition until we observe it. Then, the matter becomes fixed in our reality. This explains why the electrons can appear to be in more than one place at a time. This may be the root of the H-uncertainty.
edit on 4-10-2011 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Nicolas Flamel
 

'Mach c'? Scientists observe sound traveling faster than the speed of light

January 17, 2007
For the first time, scientists have experimentally demonstrated that sound pulses can travel at velocities faster than the speed of light, c. William Robertson’s team from Middle Tennessee State University also showed that the group velocity of sound waves can become infinite, and even negative.

Past experiments have demonstrated that the group velocities of other materials’ components—such as optical, microwave, and electrical pulses—can exceed the speed of light. But while the individual spectral components of these pulses have velocities very close to c, the components of sound waves are almost six orders of magnitude slower than light (compare 340 m/s to 300,000,000 m/s).
www.physorg.com...


In this schematic of the acoustical test system, the scientists could create superluminal group velocity of sound waves, as well as negative group velocity. In the latter case, the peak of the output pulse traveling through the loop filter exited the filter before the peak of the input pulse had reached the beginning of the filter. Image credit: Bill Robertson, et al.

en.wikipedia.org...:Languages_world_map-transparent_background.svg


Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by nii900
 


Yes, and what if that vacuum is spaghetti-like?

edit on 4-10-2011 by nii900 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2011 by nii900 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy

No one bothered to look at all the evidence then???


We have. You must have missed it.
What you posted has been mentioned several times. What's happened is certain people have chosen to ignore it. You know...what usually happens.


Ahhh right...sorry...i couldnt go through 28 pages so i read the first few and last few.

I just saw people saying how it was true and it was a fact lol.

Glad to hear im not the only one on the same wavelength



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by nii900
... group velocities ... superluminal group velocity of sound waves, as well as negative group velocity. ...


Group velocity.
Once again, group velocity is different from phase velocity. EM phase velocity is what must always be equal to c. Group velocity can be anything it wants - including faster than c. And EM group velocity can be slowed to a near-stop, as well as increased to superluminal.
Phase velocity is the speed of propagation of information. This can never be any faster than c (and, for the information transferred by light, it can never be any slower, either).



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
speeking 'bout freedom @ND
-- constant of _______________in relatiion
.....in the emerging domain of
cognitive linguistics
-----Philosophy of language -
.... issues such as metaphor or associative meanings, and semantic change, where meanings within a linguistic community change over time, and qualia or subjective experience. Another issue not addressed by the nativist model was how perceptual cues are combined in thought, e.g. in mental rotation.[6]
en.wikipedia.org...
A Photons 2D universe? www.physicsforums.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
physics.about.com...
upload.wikimedia.org...

see en.wiktionary.org...
verses www.satramana.org...
as en.wiktionary.org...
sphoTa

"The term sphoTa is etymologically derived from the root sphuT....

Gaurinatha Shastri suggested that the original Greek conception of logos best conveys the meaning of sphoTa: 'The fact that logos stand for an idea as well as a word wonderfully approximates to the concept of sphoTa' [iii].

The concept of sphoTa is the unique contribution of Indian grammarians to the philosophy of language.
www.languageinindia.com...


Text....The word sphoTa is explained in two ways [ii].
1.Naagesha BhaTTa defines sphoTa as sphuTati prakaashate'rtho'smaad iti sphoTaH (that, from which the meaning bursts forth, that is, shines forth. In other words, the word that expresses a meaning, or the process of expressing a meaning through a word is called sphoTa.
2.SphoTa, according to Maadhava, is that which is manifested or revealed by the phonemes: sphuTyate vyajyate varNairiti sphoTaH.
.
.
According to PataNjali, sphoTa is not identical with shabda. It is rather a permanent element of shabda, whereas dhvani represents its non-permanent aspect. The sphoTa is not audible like dhvani [ix]. It is manifested by the articulated sounds. The dhvani element of speech may differ in phonetic value with reference to the variation in the utterance of different speakers. Differences in speed of utterance and time distinctions are attributes of dhvani, which can not affect the nature of sphoTa revealed by the sound. When a sound passes from a speaker's lips, sphoTa is revealed instantaneously. But before the listener comprehends anything, dhvani elements manifest the permanent element of shabda. So, sphoTa comes first and manifesting dhvani also continues to exist after the revelation of sphoTa. That is why PataNjali remarks that dhvani-s are actualized and euphemeral elements and attributes of sphoTa [x].

PataNjali points out that the sphoTa, which is revealed by the articulate sounds, can be presented through phonemes only. A phoneme (vowel) which represents sphoTa remains the same in three modes of utterance, i.e. slow, fast and faster, whereas dhvani (articulate sound) differs in different utterances [xi].

It is just like the distance, which remains the same, even if it is covered by various means, which travel slow, fast, and faster. Regarding the unaffected nature of sphoTa, PataNjali gives the analogy of a drumbeat. When a drum is struck, one drumbeat may travel twenty feet, another thirty feet, another forty feet and so on. Though the sounds produced by beating the drum differ, the drumbeat remains the same. SphoTa is precisely of such and such a size, the increase and decrease in step is caused by the difference in the duration of dhvani [xii].

According to PataNjali, sphoTa is a conceptual entity or generic feature of articulated sounds, either in the form of isolated phonemes or a series of phonemes. It is a permanent element of physical sounds which are transitory in nature, and which vary in length, tempo and pitch of the speaker. It is an actualized replica of euphemeral sounds.

5. BHARTRHARI ON SPHOTA

In interpreting the doctrine of sphoTa, Bhartrhari follows the tradition handed down by his predecessors like PataNjali and others. While explaining the notion of sphoTa, he not only gives his own view but also gives the views of others (using the quotative markers, kecit and apare) [xiii], without mentioning their names. Traditionally it is believed that they may be MImamsakas and Naiyaayikas.

The notion of sphota is part of Bhartrhari's monistic and idealistic metaphysical theory. The term sphoTa occurs nine times in the BrahmakaaNDa [xiv], the use of the term shabda [xv] in different senses namely, pada, vaakya, sphoTa, dhvani, naada, praakrtadhvani, and vaikrtadhvani pose certain difficulties in determining the actual nature of sphoTa.

6. NATURE OF SPHOTA

Bhartrhari begins the discussion of the nature of sphoTa with the observation that words or sentences can be considered under two aspects as sound pattern, or its generic feature. He recognizes two entities, both of which may be called shabda, one is the underlying cause of the articulated sounds, while the other is used to express the meaning. Thus it is said:

dvaavupaadaanashabdeSu shabdau shabdavido viduH
eko nimittam shabdaanaamaparo'rthe prayujyate. Bk. 44//

The former, called sphoTa, is the conceptual entity and permanent element of word, whereas the latter, called dhvani, is a sound pattern, which is the external aspect of the language symbol. Thus, sphoTa which is mental impression of an audible sound pattern, is the cause of that sound pattern.

7. TWO VIEWS REGARDING THE RELATION OF SPHOTA AND DHVANI

Bhartrhari records two totally contradictory views about these two different elements of the word - - SphoTa and Dhvani. According to some, there is an absolute difference between these two elements, with cause and effect relationship between them. This agrees with the view held by the logician, who assumed total distinction between the cause and effect. According to the second view, the difference between these elements is mere psychological and not real. This is said to be the view held by Vedaantins, Saamkhya, and grammarians, who believe that the effect is inherited in the cause [xvi].

SphoTa, according to Bhartrhari, is always intimately related to dhvani. As soon as the sounds are produced the sphoTa is cognized instantly. Thus, sounds are manifesters and sphoTa is manifested [xvii].

It is the articulate sound, which reaches the listener's ear in the form of the sphoTa. To put it differently, sphoTa is a replica of dhvani having phonetic features. That's why it is an "auditory image of the sound" [xviii].

According to Bhartrhari, sphoTa [xix] is one and without sequence. Therefore, neither the question of parts nor the order can arise in the conception of sphoTa. It is sound or naada, which is produced at different moments of time, and the notions of sequence of plurality that really pertain to sounds are wrongly attributed to sphoTa.

Bhartrhari elucidates this point with the illustration of reflection. The reflection [xx] of moon in the water, though actually immovable, appears to be moving due to the movement in the water. Here is the property of water; that is, movability is superimposed on the reflected image of the moon. Similarly, sequence which is a property of sound is superimposed on the sphoTa which in reality is without sequence.

The temporal distinction [xxi] and variations in the speed of utterance [xxii] are the properties, which provide many varieties and, thereby they explain continuity of the perception of sphoTa. But the properties of the secondary sound do not affect the intrinsic form of the sphoTa.

8. THREE VIEWS ON THE RELATION BETWEEN SPHOTA AND DHVANI [xxiii]

First View

The sound, which is closely bound up with the sphoTa, is not perceived separately, like color, which is not separately perceived from the object.

Second View

The sound, without getting itself perceived, causes the perception of the sphoTa, as the sense organ and their qualities, which being themselves unperceived, cause the perception of objects.

Third View

Sound is also perceived without giving rise to the perception of the form of sphoTa. In other words, the perception of sound is not regarded as identical with the perception of the sphoTa.



edit on 4-10-2011 by nii900 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2011 by nii900 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
No one bothered to look at all the evidence then???

Il assume not...so heres some information you may find interesting.

Neutrinos...DO NOT travel faster than light...FACT!
As CLprime said, that's been posted before. I posted it several pages ago, (with a source) so obviously I think there's validity to the argument.

But if you read the source I cited, it said not to do what you're doing, which is to express this observation with overconfidence. The reason is that since there are different "flavors" of neutrinos, we can't rule out that the neutrinos from SN1987A might be of a different "flavor" than the neutrinos from the CERN experiment and therefore might behave differently.

I thought it was a valid caveat, however you would think the supernova being more energetic would be more likely to create the faster moving particles compared to the CERN experiment. But since I can't guarantee they're the same "flavor" of neutrinos in the supernova and at CERN, the claim is less than 100% conclusive, at least according to the author of the source I cited. I reluctantly agree with that assertion, though I still suspect an error in CERN's measurements.
edit on 4-10-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



new topics

top topics



 
142
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join