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.

 

Speed of Light Not a Constant

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

Particle 'flips to all flavours'
Puzzling results from Cern, home of the LHC, have confounded physicists - because it appears subatomic particles have exceeded the speed of light.

link
www.bbc.co.uk...

So,
Einstein is wrong. So Special Relativity is based on a wrong assumption. Therefore, Special Relativity is wrong.

But consider another possibility. Maybe time is changing. Light is going the same speed but our perception of time is changing similar to how the standard kilo mass has recently changed. The link below indicates mass is changing.

link
www.sciencedaily.com...

Also radioactive decay is no longer constant.

If light speed is constant, and since time is a variable, it is logical that time can change and the increase in the speed of light just discovered is an illusion.

Comments?




posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I am not sure what to think. What I do think right now is we need more data. This news is actually old news as I have seen it in the Cern news and on here before. Like a month ago or so.

Im not a fan of a huge energetic machine smashing atoms and subatomic particles deep inside our Earth...just not cool with me. I love the Human Race more than I love Science.


To me.....time and space are an illusion of perception based on the observation by said perception. Light is an illusion on many levels and to say it is less than or faster than is really hard to tell when looking out of my eyes with my perception.
Make sense?


There needs to be more data gathered and more observations made. How fast did they go and at what length of time? Do you know?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by consciousgod
www.bbc.co.uk...

So,
Einstein is wrong. So Special Relativity is based on a wrong assumption. Therefore, Special Relativity is wrong.

Comments?
So the people that have published this result have stated that it could be erroneous and they are making no claims, but you have somehow determined otherwise? Or else you didn't read past the headline?


the group understands that what are known as "systematic errors" could easily make an erroneous result look like a breaking of the ultimate speed limit, and that has motivated them to publish their measurements...

he explained, "we are not claiming things, we want just to be helped by the community in understanding our crazy result - because it is crazy".


Also, already posted in the science and technology forum, I'm not sure why you posted it in this forum since it's not specifically about space exploration, is it?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Please don't take offense to this but,
my opinion is that this is like the fourth thread on this subject.
Mods?
WAKE UP!!!!



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 


Is that all you have to offer in so many threads ???

Getting tired of hearing # like this, GTFO if it bothers you so much.

The mods are not at the speed of light ,, it is ALSO variable.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I am fascinated by this - I always suspected that the special relativity theory was wrong as no one I know could ever answer this.

If I am on a ship travelling at the speed of light and I was dying for a wee then surely nature would make my wee travel faster than the speed of light - then lets say it is an aircraft carrier and I launch a fast jet and then a missile from the fast jet I think you get the picture........



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
If calculations bear out this doesn't prove Special Relativity is wrong and science is the discovery physical phenomena that tries to explain The Theory of Everything. With such a monumental task and improving detection technology the science is up for amendments to and additions to measured known repeatable proofs of concepts. In fact it is time that is less of a constant and Special Relativity is the first theory that demonstrates that.

It is not certain to me that what was measured was information or baryonic matter that supposedly showed up a couple billionths of a second earlier that anticipated, so there is that too.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by Screwed
 


Is that all you have to offer in so many threads ???

Getting tired of hearing # like this, GTFO if it bothers you so much.

The mods are not at the speed of light ,, it is ALSO variable.


Apparantly the mods don't mind multiple threads on the exact same topic any more than they mind
your verbally abusive comments towards other members.
Not surprising.

So tell me, what does "GTFO" stand for exactly?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Bingo.

I've stated many times that the measurement for time cannot be linear.
Since it now appears it is not actually a "constant", this means that we should have been measuring time non-linearly, logarithmically because there is some parabolic curve element at work.

This new scientific discovery plays perfectly with the 2 Billion years vs 2 thousand year old Earth debate and now, science and the Bible can actually compliment each other.

Ex. With respect to our current measurement of time,
* The First Day of Creation could have actually lasted several hundred million years .
* The Second Day,... several million years,
* ...the Third Day, ..several hundred thousand years, ...


Notice the time decay occuring with each passing day during the first seven days?
This can also explain why early Biblical man lived for several hundred years too, because time measurement was still stabilizing and coming to a rest.

Now that time measurment has stablized, it has become linear.-----------------------------



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
Bingo.

I've stated many times that the measurement for time cannot be linear.
Since it now appears it is not actually a "constant",
Actually the fact that time is relative was one of the claims of relativity nearly a century ago, so I have no idea why you're saying it now appears it's not a constant. It never was a constant, since the emergence of relativity.


Originally posted by druid1
I am fascinated by this - I always suspected that the special relativity theory was wrong as no one I know could ever answer this.

If I am on a ship travelling at the speed of light and I was dying for a wee then surely nature would make my wee travel faster than the speed of light - then lets say it is an aircraft carrier and I launch a fast jet and then a missile from the fast jet I think you get the picture........
That's pretty easy to answer.

You can't go the speed of light so the premise of the problem is a non-starter.

But let's say you're on a spaceship going 99.9999% of the speed of light, standing in front of a urinal. You can urinate normally, and you won't notice anything odd on the spaceship about your wee. It's when you shine a flashlight in your direction of travel that things get strange. The beam of light will appear to both you, and to an outside observer not going at your velocity, to be traveling at the speed of light. The reason the light doesn't move any faster on your ship is because your clock has slowed down so much, and light is composed of energy at frequencies, which are time-dependent. So the light beam is leaving your flashlight in slow motion, so to speak.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
The power of the atom has been underestimated and driving an electron into
a proton making a neutron releasing a neutrino was done by Tesla in a
process called K capture. Not entirely voltage and charge forces but resulting
physical pressure drives the non charged particle. Generating focused beams
for power distribution needed only the secret pickup device to extract the
the energy which in all likely hood would be the same as the beam forming
device. Beam size 1/2 millionth of centimeter was the Tesla calculation if
my Tesla reading is correct. Amazing how many years they can stretch
the funding for taking measurements. We got three years, ok then until the
pay check ends. Then the Relativists come up with excuses.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

But let's say you're on a spaceship going 99.9999% of the speed of light, standing in front of a urinal. You can urinate normally, and you won't notice anything odd on the spaceship about your wee. It's when you shine a flashlight in your direction of travel that things get strange. The beam of light will appear to both you, and to an outside observer not going at your velocity, to be traveling at the speed of light. The reason the light doesn't move any faster on your ship is because your clock has slowed down so much, and light is composed of energy at frequencies, which are time-dependent. So the light beam is leaving your flashlight in slow motion, so to speak.


The guy on the ship sees his flashlight beam travel at C away from him. The stationary observer outside the ship who is not accelerating sees the flashlight beam on the ship traveling at C away from his stationary position.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 


The speed of light depends upon the medium of travel density.
Space is assumed to have a density that gives light a constant value.
This is a loss-less travel and to do what light does would be a feather in
your cap and revolutionize the energy business.
If the speed has change in an experimant then the experimant has changed the
density of the medium. Tell them to look at that phenomena before jumping
to dumb conclusions.



new topics




 
2

log in

join