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: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   

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)


Oh I see, however I wouldn't call that a new law in physics just yet.

Fermilab has announced it will attempt to replicate the experimental results within four to six months. source
It will be interesting to see what results they get.


Originally posted by Lannock
Maybe he's talking about neutrinos breaking the light-speed barrier?

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


Join the club my friend.




posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by MichelJCardin
 
MichaelJCardin,

You know, I am just beginning to get a glimmer of what you see, and I am impressed by your courage and imagination. I'm not yet able to think of the results occuring when the basic rules of reality are changed, but I will come back to this thread and use it as a mental gymnasium.

Thanks for posting.
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ThePawnsTheory
 


I doubt that I contradict myself and if I would so would be from realising different but in this instance of that of static electric composition ; there is that of issue where the area is taking space and not alowing any other substance to exist within that space where that would be relevent to pressure that surounds it and would it be subjected to a resistance because of any such thing or would it keep on without affect thus affecting it's surrounding thus compressing it further; and if otherwise the case where ability to surpress the a transfer of static or perhaps would be in our control by containing it under pressure; well then by fluctuating and playing with this in the area pressure where it if possible would keep it at bay and area where it would advance by force; we could sustain it then if we could fine tune pressure levels; but if otherwise again it is governing force ; we then could use it within functions where compression was to be needing to gain; I doubt that there would be any use as such and my idea originally was that of if we could suspend it and if it then would give out heat without losing charge; that would be interesting. And my idea to do this was to use it as it was going forward; to close the link to it's destinated conection. And if I were to contradict myself; never the less should I be seen as because I have but all our best interests as priority.
edit on 27-9-2011 by MichelJCardin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by MichelJCardin
 

That's amazing.
All that in two sentences.

edit on 9/27/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by yizzel
 


Light probably hasn't anywhere to settle and that is likely why it streams without resistance and you cn actually slow it down and that is by use of deflections like two mirrors while who's to say that the size of an event is stipulatable and if that is the case then light is really faster than it appears to be; in all likelyness.LOL Light is but un-used lumination that has no space that it can stop because it is non existant but in within company of a matter and if where it originated before that had had consumed it completly; it then would not have existed at all thus it is but a product of reactions of a matter onto another thus it is but an obtical effect of temperary.LOL Whatever huh.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by MichelJCardin
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.

I must say it is interesting to read theories on the proposed breaking of what are currently regarded as "laws" of physics. But I am having a little trouble deciphering exactly what you are trying to say here. Have you considered posting diagrams to aid your explanations? They don't need to be masterpieces, but anything would help. I was wondering if you meant by "lock" and "helped"(bolded above), you mean add work to the system? If so, then it may not be breaking any laws. But I'm not really sure whats going on here.



Originally posted by MichelJCardin
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.

The problem I see with this, is that when you heat steel, you modify the grain structure (I assume you mean heating steel into the austenite region?). If you bent steel while it is hot, and let it cool, the grain structure will simply reform, although grain size will depend on the amount of time that the steel is heated and cooled. I don't see how you could "retrieve the force when cooled", as the work put into heating the steel is used to modify the grain structure. Also, it takes considerable energy to heat the steel, some of which will inevitably be lost. If I am misinterpreting you, feel free to clarify, it would be much appreciated.


Originally posted by MichelJCardin
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.

Is this similiar to the contraption you proposed in this thread?. I explained why it was not possible to create the required water pressure with a mass and simply float it again, as it does indeed require considerable force. But there hasn't been any further discussion on that thread. These are just some of the potential issues I see with your theories. Not trying to say they can't possibly be true, but I believe there may be some discrepencies that you have over looked. But don't let that stop the thinking, it's been interesting trying to decipher these ideas. It's always good to get the mind thinking.


edit on 27/9/11 by Curious and Concerned because: shpelling



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   
I am intrigued. Is this thread an attempt by the OP to prove the infinite monkey theorem experimentally?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by MichelJCardin
 
For instance when it comes to light and it's suposed travelling and/or the speed it disperses; if we drive with our headlights on ; why isn't that light going that much faster or does it or say the car travels at the speed of light ; is then an occurance where light just acumilates at it's source? I do think that light that you call is but simply a luminance that has no matter and is only change in transloscence of matter reflecting through space optically. Something along that. Like perhaps radiance where because we can
t see it we don't compare to light where light may be radiance at an extreem/


edit on 27-9-2011 by MichelJCardin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MichelJCardin
 

That's amazing.
All that in two sentences.

The proper use of the semi colon has always been a litlle perplexing to me; but now it all makes sense; I think;?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


The semi-colon is used when the following text is relative to that one before it but is a new sentence and body of self contained structure I think.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by MichelJCardin
reply to post by MichelJCardin
 
For instance when it comes to light and it's suposed travelling and/or the speed it disperses; if we drive with our headlights on ; why isn't that light going that much faster or does it or say the car travels at the speed of light ; is then an occurance where light just acumilates at it's source?
I'm no expert on electricity and electromagnetism; I much prefer more mechanical applications; but I may be able to answer this.

When you drive a car which is producing sound at a considerable velocity (but below Mach 1), the sound waves that your car emits do not travel faster than the 'normal' speed of sound for those conditions. Instead, the frequency of the sound is altered. This is why most people are familiar with the higher pitched sound of a car coming towards you, and once it passes you hear a lower pitched sound being emitted backwards from the car. I believe this is known as the "Doppler effect".

The Doppler effect also occurs in light emitted from light sources. In fact, it is a technique used to measure the relative velocity of stars. The phenomena is known as the red shift, as the light from stars travelling away from us shifts towards the lower end of the light spectrum (red). So the light travelling from a cars headlights still travels at the speed of light, regardless of the velocity of the car.
edit on 27/9/11 by Curious and Concerned because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


I was trying to point out that it is not light that is going at that certain speed and should not be labelled as so as againg one can interupt light and alter it's dirrection where it is not travelling but more like escaping because it is but going forward only because it is not being stoped ; so it is definitally possible to move faster then it if eccelarrated constainly.For instance as I was here with a friend and brainstorming onto a possible or more cenarioes where a constaint relay would be on hand and I first thought two objects slinging oneanother where whiping would occure but I conclused that if three objects were to alter eachother towards accelleration ; that would be more feasable. I will explain that thought; I was hypateticaly viewing this as in perfect environment where control over forces of these three matters was not a challenge such as if you were to have a simulator software where in slowmotion or in event of fact would be that if you were to build three electomagnetic objects that are computer controled; you then could manipulate whiping from two onto one and so on and this is but theory but it does make the only sense where any possible way something could move forward without the use of drag resistance. there is always multipal spining wheels that can be altered somewhat like flying sausers.LOL



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MichelJCardin
I was trying to point out that it is not light that is going at that certain speed and should not be labelled as so as againg one can interupt light and alter it's dirrection where it is not travelling but more like escaping because it is but going forward only because it is not being stoped ;
I'm not really sure how any of this relates to the next phrase?


Originally posted by MichelJCardin
so it is definitally possible to move faster then it if eccelarrated constainly.

Yes we can alter the direction of light, and we can slow it down as it moves through different substances. But it is the speed of light in a vacuum which is known as the theoretical constant, c, which is what the theory is based on. Therefore reflecting or slowing light is irrelevant to our understanding of why mass cannot be transported faster than "c". It may be possible that we will find ways to transfer mass or information faster than "c", but I don't think it will come from attempts to manipulate simple Newtonian physics, such as your following theory.


Originally posted by MichelJCardin
For instance as I was here with a friend and brainstorming onto a possible or more cenarioes where a constaint relay would be on hand and I first thought two objects slinging oneanother where whiping would occure but I conclused that if three objects were to alter eachother towards accelleration ; that would be more feasable. I will explain that thought; I was hypateticaly viewing this as in perfect environment where control over forces of these three matters was not a challenge such as if you were to have a simulator software where in slowmotion or in event of fact would be that if you were to build three electomagnetic objects that are computer controled; you then could manipulate whiping from two onto one and so on and this is but theory but it does make the only sense where any possible way something could move forward without the use of drag resistance. there is always multipal spining wheels that can be altered somewhat like flying sausers.LOL

You certainly aren't the first to think that a system such as this may work, and probably won't be the last. While your enthusiasm cannot be faulted, I think there are some fundamental flaws in your understanding of how this system should work.

If you have a system, with no mass transfer or energy transfer across its boundaries, hence no external forces, the systems momentum will be conserved. Therefore, there will be no net acceleration of the system. You could have two, three or three thousand masses whipping around inside the system, but it will not effect the net momentum of the system. Any whipping inside the system will be compensated for by other elements within the system (every action has an equal and opposite reaction), and there will be no acceleration of the centre of mass. You can alter the position of the centre of mass within the system, but the centre of mass will remain stationary, or remain at a constant velocity if it is in an ideal vacuum. It certainly could not travel faster than the speed of light.

We can question whether the current "laws of physics" are wrong, but we must first understand them to claim they are certainly wrong.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
The problem with the speed of light is and why our understanding of it may need to be re-written is that the means of measuring light cannot be isolated from the same conditions that actually affect light as it is observed in a vacuum. Both the clock being used to measure the speed of light and light are affected by time dilation relating to acceleration and/or gravity. So the experiment is a tad flawed in that regard. Inertia affecting the entire experiment turns out to be relevant. In other words, if the speed of light is variable based on the gravity or acceleration field being factored in - the current experiments to measure the speed of light wouldn't reveal it. Yet we do know that light bends from gravity, so there is reason to treat such fields as if they were affecting the speed of light in a manner similar to any refracting medium. (Likely works out as some refraction gradient based on level of flux in a gravitational field, something for a math guru to have fun with. Play with it like an integral of an infinitesimal-divided fresnel lens or some such. I'm not much to crunch numbers, so I'll just float the idea out there.)

So I'm now curious if scientists will find that the speed of neutrinos as compared to the speed of photons would vary based on location or on time of day and such. (Think of gravity fields from nearby variations in density due to geology or from planetary bodies that cause tides.) If neutrinos have a differing mass than photons or are somehow mass-less this would be one way to really see it.

No, I'm not a physicist, but that seems like as good a hypothesis as any. At least to me it seems common-sense enough that it's at least worth testing by those with the equipment available.

I think the problem is that most physicists treat photons as mass-less, but if you go down far enough that's not exactly true. Some revision is likely in order because now such small details are finally starting to count.

And no, I don't feel too bad about it if it needs some fixing. That's how the scientific process is supposed to work. Some will be hesitant as some work will have to be done all over again - crunching all those numbers is a real PITA. But that's the correct way. Maybe that's all we need to get past a plateau here or there when it comes to some fields of research.




top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join