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.

 

How would we all feel about new laws of physics?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   
There is always this one where I myself would naturally name as law of existing suspension where if you were to attach a weight at a far end of a solid arm and after they rest at their resistance area horizontally; you then lock the bending motion that would occure if the arm would be relieved of it's strain but only at an area where it would let it retreat slightly where while if this arm is absolute rigid with but a fraction of an inch of bend from that weight; it then would if helped to launch the weight up ; re establish it's self at same point again while having moved up an item without any change in it's posture. And could constaintly could do this and jack it up where the weight on it's way down could then drive towards energy creating. .
edit on 27-9-2011 by MichelJCardin because: (no reason given)
Maybe the law of expantion where for example if you were to crank bending onto spring steel while it is hot and retreive the force when cooled to then be exeeding the initial energy and the temperature changing should also be of capability of creating from the force gained. Or law of the unstable elements such as water and it's changing aspects whilst needing little force to change as opposed to possible created.
edit on 27-9-2011 by MichelJCardin because: (no reason given)
Or the law of multiplying force at expence of distance in order to gain early speed in any inluding gravity where at start of an object of faling ; one could on an extreem short distance basice multiply it's weight and release it against where it would then gain without outside aid. This could be implimented onto those five ball bearings that suspend on those stringsand keep swinging.
edit on 27-9-2011 by MichelJCardin because: (no reason given)
Or the law of balance of twin opposite cycle functions where needing to shift a weight can be effortless if an event of identical nature needs an opposite change of stance where these counter their counter resistance against their movements otherwise.
edit on 27-9-2011 by MichelJCardin because: (no reason given)
I could go on and on but maybe tomorrow.
edit on 27-9-2011 by MichelJCardin because: (no reason given)
How about law of forced seperation of substances and their forces and weaknesses such as breakage of solids like glass[ a bit of a lost one;but fun] I wanted to give an example on the one before that one and say we were to re-create the swinging of a person on a swing and the actions they make as to exelerate ; we were say to construct the same movements mechanically and we also a second one and they were oc=ff cycle to one another and balanced while their need to changge stance; not quite sure but wanted to think of an example. Good Night.And if I think of one that I just can't stop but share it I will.
edit on 27-9-2011 by MichelJCardin because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
About like that.
Pretty much.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
lol what he said....cuz um meh...thats all i got



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Going by the title of the thread I would be all for it. All the fields of science go through periods of change. We consider things absolute until new information is introduced and then we change what we previously thought.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Up would be down down would be blue and blue would be donkeys.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Change is good.

It's not going to effect the way i live, so Eh.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by MichelJCardin


Yes.

I often think



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
OP you have put in to words what I couldn't. That is exactly my stance on this matter as well.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
well, what do we really know about physics besides identifying the various particles within the spectrum? how do we find unified theory, perhaps our most sought after prize in physics?



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
As long as they don't infringe on my personal liberties, I'm OK with them.

LOL.. sorry, I had to say it.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by MichelJCardin
 


I'm not quite sure I can agree with your stance on this subject.
-



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Up would be down down would be blue and blue would be donkeys.


therefore donkeys = down because blue = donkeys, and blue is also down.

Physics is confusing. it's all the same energy at the core anyways. so in a way donkeys = up. Strange.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Were down to just titles now, huh?

Jeesh.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
I suppose we would all be speechless.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Laws were meant to be broken.

Some things even disappear..........



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by MichelJCardin
 

Thank you for clarifying your position.
I'll stick with my original statement.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by MichelJCardin


If the new laws of physics can explain why your OP is blank then I'd be impressed!

Additional: I see the OP is no longer blank, though I must say it made more sense before...
Sorry but what's this new laws of physics you talk about?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by yizzel
 


Last week scientists announced that during an experiment with the CERN in Geneva that neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light by about 60 nanoseconds. This brought up Einsteins theory of E=mc^2 and how nothing should be able to travel faster than the speed of light. This is what began the discussion of possible having to rewrite the laws of physics if this experiment is prooven to be true since we would now have something that does travel faster than the speed of light.
edit on 27-9-2011 by lcbjr1979 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Maybe he's talking about neutrinos breaking the light-speed barrier?


I'm all for change. I would like to think that as we become more advanced and learn more the old "laws" can be challenged or even dropped completely.

Then again, I'm not half as smart as you geeks and I dunno what I'm talking about.


EDIT to add:

Originally posted by lcbjr1979
reply to post by yizzel
 


Last week scientists announced that during an experiment with the CERN in Geneva that neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light by about 60 nanoseconds. This brought up Einsteins theory of E=mc^2 and how nothing should be able to travel faster than the speed of light. This is what began the discussion of possible having to rewrite the laws of physics if this experiment is prooven to be true since we would now have something that does travel faster than the speed of light.
edit on 27-9-2011 by lcbjr1979 because: (no reason given)


I was thinking that there can be only 2 possibilities:
1) Neutrinos have no mass
2) Einstein's theory is wrong.
edit on 27-9-2011 by Lannock because: added quote
3) We're talking billionths of a second here. Clock synchronization issue?



edit on 27-9-2011 by Lannock because: Added option 3



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by MichelJCardin
 


Ah yes, but doesn't that go against what you said in a previous thread about static electric transfer?



What could you use to control it and get it to retract and stop it from retracting and getting it to advance again and then stop it again and getit again to retract and keeping this going on continuously?

I think that static electric transfer advances at 18000 km/h; so how do youkeep it hovering?

...of course, I get easily confused...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join