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.

 

Faster-than-light neutrino result reportedly a mistake caused by loose cable

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread812265/pg2#pid13538614]post by You seem to be missing the point...

He's not arguing, he's Attacking with ad homenims, attempts to ridicule, and appeals to authority.

He hasn't actually SAID anything yet.


Oh I definitely see it, but I can't help my curiosity.




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by imherejusttoread

Originally posted by Moduli
Hahah wtf? You realize that relativity is something that can easily be tested at home, right? And is something that every undergraduate physics lab tests? Measuring the speed of light, for example, is something very simple to do. I did it years ago as a student.


That's very deceptive.

There's a major difference between using professional lab equipment vs. testing it at home with a fork and a small flashlight.


I wouldn't use a fork and a flashlight, but you can do it in a number of ways for a few dozen dollars of equipment. And the point is you can do it well enough that way at home to verify the predictions of relativity.


Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
He's not arguing, he's Attacking with ad homenims, attempts to ridicule, and appeals to authority.


I have provided you with more than enough information to learn how to actually do it. And you haven't exactly provided any detailed mathematical calculations either. Mainly because you think things like square roots are so complicated it's unreasonable for children to have learned them.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 



You really don't even want to spend the three seconds it takes to figure out how DISTANCE might be related to SPEED??


Duh.... Of course distance and TIME are related to speed....

What's that got to do with interference?



Yeah, THEY'RE THE SAME EQUATIONS. That's the way! Maxwell's equations. Learn them! Understand them!


Would you like to explain how the equations for measuring the propagation speed of magnetic or electrical waves moving through an electrical or magnetic conductor are related to the propagation speed of an electromagnetic wave moving through a complete vacuum?

And would you also like to explain how electrons flowing through a conductor in any way approaches the speed of light in that medium?

OR how it required The theories of general or special relativity to explain it?

Or are you just going to keep ad homeniming your way through this "debate"?


One equation for each direction. Still trivial. Not to mention you can always rotate things so motion is linear in special relativity because it's about inertial frames only (which I'm SURE you know since you're clearly an expert here).


Sure, they can be only about 2 dimensions if you want... but for the full effects of mapping relativistic effects in space time, you have to use the Minkowski metric with 4 dimensions.

And also, the Lorentz Transformation Metric.... you know, for different inertial frames.... which is what relativity is all about...



The Lorentz force law: learn it. I can't do your learning for you.
I'll even give you the link!
en.wikipedia.org...
particularly note: it is relativistic:
en.wikipedia.org...
and WIRES:
en.wikipedia.org...-carrying_wire

All you need to do is READ, it's all spelled out for you!


Oh.... I get it....

You are saying that you need to use the relativistic calculations for a conductor carrying a current if the conductor is moving relative to you at SPEEDS NEAR LIGHT...

Right?


Because the electric and magnetic fields are dependent on the velocity of an observer, the relativistic form of the Lorentz force law can best be exhibited starting from a coordinate-independent expression for the electromagnetic and magnetic fields


Yes... that's it...

If you want to measure the current carrying capacity of a wire, the wire must be moving at relativistic speeds relative to you, so that you can account for all of that pesky Time dilation...



Are you feeling ok?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli
I wouldn't use a fork and a flashlight, but you can do it in a number of ways for a few dozen dollars of equipment. And the point is you can do it well enough that way at home to verify the predictions of relativity.


And that equipment is? What are the parameters?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 



I have provided you with more than enough information to learn how to actually do it. And you haven't exactly provided any detailed mathematical calculations either. Mainly because you think things like square roots are so complicated it's unreasonable for children to have learned them.


You are too funny....

You have provided lots of math's, this is true... and I have no doubt that you actually can DO all of this nice, fancy schmancy mathematics....

But you don't know how or why it relates to reality (or more precisely, why it doesn't)

I can tell now that you actually went to school for this, and that's why I feel bad for you....



Because you are going to have to unlearn everything you have been taught...



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Would you like to explain how the equations for measuring the propagation speed of magnetic or electrical waves moving through an electrical or magnetic conductor are related to the propagation speed of an electromagnetic wave moving through a complete vacuum?



Would you like to read a physics book? No? Well then I would not like to waste my time explaining it to do when you can figure this out in an afternoon of reading in any physics book ever written.




Or are you just going to keep ad homeniming your way through this "debate"?


Telling you to read a textbook is not an ad hominium. An ad hominum is saying "you're stupid, therefore you are incorrect." Which is not a valid logical implication. (For the industrious reader, consider the converse statement.)



You are saying that you need to use the relativistic calculations for a conductor carrying a current if the conductor is moving relative to you at SPEEDS NEAR LIGHT...


No, I'm saying you have no idea what any of the words I have used are, and you need to READ A BOOK AND LEARN THEM before you talk about them like you know what they mean instead of asking me to explain things, and then complaining I haven't because you don't understand anything.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by imherejusttoread

Originally posted by Moduli
I wouldn't use a fork and a flashlight, but you can do it in a number of ways for a few dozen dollars of equipment. And the point is you can do it well enough that way at home to verify the predictions of relativity.


And that equipment is? What are the parameters?


I don't know what "parameters" is supposed to mean, but you can do it with, e.g., a cheap laser pointer and a diffraction grating, or, if you're lazy/hungry a microwave and some cheese or marshmallow (you can probably find youtube videos of this). If you're reasonably careful, you can measure the speed of light to within a few percent using this.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 



Would you like to read a physics book? No? Well then I would not like to waste my time explaining it to do when you can figure this out in an afternoon of reading in any physics book ever written.


Too complicated a subject for you to broach, eh?

I guess I was mistaken before when I said that you knew this stuff.... because you obviously don't.

You appear to be just another shill, defending Einstein like it's a religion.

And the sad part is, you aren't even any good at it.


Telling you to read a textbook is not an ad hominium. An ad hominum is saying "you're stupid, therefore you are incorrect." Which is not a valid logical implication. (For the industrious reader, consider the converse statement.)


Well, that is true, but that's not the Ad homenim I was referring to, was I?

Keep telling me to read them physics textbooks man.... it's really helping your case....



Goodbye.


instead of asking me to explain things, and then complaining I haven't


Quote where you have explained something....

Go ahead, I dare you.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Too complicated a subject for you to broach, eh?


Too complicated a subject to read about? You obviously haven't, because understanding the wiki pages alone would take more than the few minutes you took to reply.

I'm happy to explain things, but not to people who don't bother to do any work themselves.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 




I'm surprised the extremely well-educated and intelligent people working at CERN didn't think of that one.


you'd be suprised. the mars orbiter that crashed around 1998-1999 happened because the lockheed martin team was using english measurments, and nasa was using metric. no one thought to check that the numbers were from the same unit of measurment.


NASA lost a 125 million Mars orbiter because a Lockheed Martin engineering team used English units of measurement while the agencys team used the more conventional metric system for a key spacecraft operation, according to a review finding released Thursday.

articles.cnn.com...:TECH

the engines couldn't function properly because it dipped 25k too deep into the martian atmosphere because of the differing units.
edit on 23-2-2012 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 



I'm happy to explain things, but not to people who don't bother to do any work themselves.


Come back when you actually understand the concepts well enough to explain them, instead of merely citing wiki articles about it, and appealing to authority.

Until that time, You haven't actually argued any of the points, you are just using Logical Fallacies to attempt to assert your position.

And no, You don't understand the concepts, because if you did, you wouldn't be getting all butt frustrated over it.

You'd just explain it as if you could.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Come back when you actually understand the concepts well enough to explain them, instead of merely citing wiki articles about it, and appealing to authority.


Yes, my advanced degree and several published papers in string theory clearly give me no understanding of the subject. But hey, you once read a wiki article and some conspiracy forums, clearly you're the real expert here!



Until that time, You haven't actually argued any of the points, you are just using Logical Fallacies to attempt to assert your position.


Asking you to read something is not fallacious.



And no, You don't understand the concepts, because if you did, you wouldn't be getting all butt frustrated over it.


I'm not frustrated at all, I find it hilarious. And I have no intention of explaining any more than I have until you bother to learn some basic physics, such as how distance is related to velocity for waves. Until then, it would be a waste of everyone's time because you don't understand anything about the language the explanation would be in!



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 



Yes, my advanced degree and several published papers in string theory


[Citation Needed]


Asking you to read something is not fallacious.


Asking how relativity applies to conduction, only to be refuted with Furious Anger and a "Grrr Just read the article that has nothing to do with the subject" Is fallacious.

Conduction has nothing to do with relativity, special or otherwise.

And you still haven't explained how relativity can be tested at home.

Not like you are ever going to.


I'm not frustrated at all, I find it hilarious.


I'll believe that when my poop turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet.


And I have no intention of explaining.....


Then why are you even here?


such as how distance is related to velocity for waves.


Oh, Mr Smarty smart Science Man!!! please come down off of your ivory tower of Knowledgeness and explain to us poor primatives how the wavelength of an electromagnetic wave superimposed on it's own reflection can cause interference patterns with itself to judge only how close the phases of the light are, as opposed to how fast the photons are traveling!!!

How did you set up the experiment, what was the medium that you were sending the photon through, what were you bouncing it off of, how far away was it, did you take local magnetic and electrostatic fields into account for the Zeeman and Stark effects, did you measure waves speed, or did you just measure the phase overlap in your experiment...

etc, etc, etc....

You have no idea what you are doing.


Until then, it would be a waste of everyone's time because you don't understand anything about the language the explanation would be in!


You are one to talk Mr. "Whatever I say is right, and I don't have to explain myself because I really don't know what I am talking about"



GO away... you are mean, and wrong.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Asking how relativity applies to conduction, only to be refuted with Furious Anger and a "Grrr Just read the article that has nothing to do with the subject" Is fallacious.


No, it isn't. Learn what a fallacy is.



And you still haven't explained how relativity can be tested at home.


And you still haven't read where I did.



Oh, Mr Smarty smart Science Man!!! please come down off of your ivory tower of Knowledgeness and explain to us poor primatives how the wavelength of an electromagnetic wave superimposed on it's own reflection can cause interference patterns with itself to judge only how close the phases of the light are, as opposed to how fast the photons are traveling!!!


Yeah, this knowledge hasn't been around for more than a century or anything.
en.wikipedia.org...
Or, you know, used in one of the most important experiments ever done that anyone who knows anything about special relativity should know in detail. And it's not like you could've found this in three seconds of googling either.

LMGTFY:
lmgtfy.com...
FIRST RESULT.
edit on 23-2-2012 by Moduli because: LMGTFY



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 



No, it isn't. Learn what a fallacy is.


k.

Logical Fallacy: Argument From Authority


And you still haven't read where I did.


You never did.


Yeah, this knowledge hasn't been around for more than a century or anything.


Oh, that?

lol.... are you serious?

You didn't account for the Zeeman Effect.

lol


Or, you know, used in one of the most important experiments ever done that anyone who knows anything about special relativity should know in detail. And it's not like you could've found this in three seconds of googling either.


Aw... how cute... more Logical Fallacies....

Appeal to Ridicule

Would you like to explain how a disproof of the "luminiferous aether", is positive proof for relativity?

Because I'm pretty sure that Science doesn't work that way.




The constancy of the speed of light was postulated by Albert Einstein in 1905,[35] motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous aether but not, contrary to widespread belief, by the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment.[36] However the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment helped the notion of the constancy of the speed of light gain widespread and rapid acceptance.

en.wikipedia.org...



That experiment is not positive proof of relativity.

Ya big meany.
edit on 23-2-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Would you like to explain how a disproof of the "luminiferous aether", is positive proof for relativity?


Hahaha omg, conspiracy forms, you do not ever fail to disappoint!

Edit:
hahah and you did not even read the text at the link for it correctly! Breathtaking!
edit on 23-2-2012 by Moduli because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 



Hahaha omg, conspiracy forms, you do not ever fail to disappoint!

Edit:
hahah and you did not even read the text at the link for it correctly! Breathtaking!


So, if I disprove evolution, that PROVES that God created man in his image, eh?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Moduli
 



Hahaha omg, conspiracy forms, you do not ever fail to disappoint!

Edit:
hahah and you did not even read the text at the link for it correctly! Breathtaking!


So, if I disprove evolution, that PROVES that God created man in his image, eh?


If you can use math to prove only either one or the other is correct, then yes.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 



If you can use math to prove only either one or the other is correct, then yes.


You know that science doesn't work that way....

Come on now....

No scientific theory can be "Proven" just by disproving one of it's compeditors... Positive claims require positive proofs, and The Michelson-Morley experiment was MERELY negative proof for the luminiferous Either... *NOT* as you assert, Positive proof for relativity.

So, we are back at the beginning of this sad, sorry, excuse for an argument where you were claiming that you can test relativity at home.


Hahah wtf? You realize that relativity is something that can easily be tested at home, right?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So, shall we try this again?
edit on 23-2-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
You know that science doesn't work that way....


Yes it does. Symbolic logic explicitly states this.
A ^ ~A
is always true.

EITHER (the speed of light depends on direction) OR (it does not)

Michelson and Morely showed it does not, therefore IT DOES NOT.

This isn't rocket science.

"it does not" logically implies relativity is true.

Therefore, relativity is true.
A = aether
A ^ ~A
~A
therefore A ^ ~A => ~A
~A => relativity
therefore
Michelson-Morely's result implies relativity must be true.

The only possible issue is margins of experimental error, which is why you do multiple experiments of different conclusions and combine the probabilities to know exactly.

This is very simple.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join