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' scientist steps down

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I think where people get confused is that these waves of this sort, pack a good wallup for their size. A transverse wave. So they tend to start thinking well it must have mass. But they forget that there is the quantum foam, and it has mass, and I hate to use the analogy of a wave on the ocean but when it slams into the dock, you have to say that mass is part of that equation. But its borrowed mass. The mass of the water.

So if you say that the neutrino has mass after it has been measured to travel at c, then you have to rewrite the physics books but before you do that, you need to show how that could be possible, that something with mass could get around relativity theory. So you have to disprove relativity theory. And I have not seen any indication that it is wrong myself. The standard model is often lacking but not relativity theory.

I am going to read up some more on this but I did listen to a broadcast on the BBC in our time, on the subject last week, and I think they said that the detectors used a gas, maybe chlorine gas and when a neutrino goes through the gas, it lights up with Cherenkov radiation

So its not in the hand held device stage yet. But when it lights up it does so with a cone, the cone can be examined for a direction of source.

So you see what a neutrino is, is an energetic wave emitted from a radioactive substance that when it meets chlorine gas, emits Cherenkov radiation. Now then when it does so it exceeds the speed of light. the speed of light in water. Or the speed of light in Chlorine. Not the speed of light in a vacuum.




posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Perhaps he was onto something and TPTB considered him a threat to their aged laws and decided to do away with him.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by thebestnr1
 




he supposedly got it wrong a few weaks ago why step down now


If they really do have some kind of gravity propulsion system out in area 51 they aren't going to tell us how that works either right?



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   

As a neutrino propagates through space, the quantum mechanical phases of the three mass states advance at slightly different rates due to the slight differences in the neutrino masses. This results in a changing mixture of mass states as the neutrino travels, but a different mixture of mass states corresponds to a different mixture of flavor states. So a neutrino born as, say, an electron neutrino will be some mixture of electron, mu, and tau neutrino after traveling some distance.


From wiki Neutrino Oscillation
So what you are measuring here as the neutrino travels is the density of space-time.
Now depending on where you fire those neutrinos, that will depend on how much ambient pressure is in that area as in what is the gravitational gradient, which is compressing space-time since space-time is curved around massive bodies.

Without looking for eddies and currents which of course are there, but larger changes in ambient pressure you can detect by the effect on the oscillations of the neutrino. But if you try to suppose that this proves the neutrino has mass you end up with a paradox. And in this case its not a valid paradox. Since to expect to find anything down there that is not just a matter of scale of things we already have studied well, would be just wishful thinking.
Now this move to say that the neutrino is a particle with mass, that is oscillating with matter waves, is silly.
Its just like light. Comes in a packet. Why would it be anything else than that? The only thing that has intrinsic mass is a proton. And a bubble of quantum foam. Nothing else has mass. And there is a very good reason for that. Since one is made of the others and is just a larger bubble for all intents and purposes.
And it is that substance, that skin on that bubble, with perfect elasticity, according to Einstein and Brownian motion, that we can consider matter. and mass without matter is contrary to the purpose and definition of mass and would defy every law of physics including Newtonian Mechanics.
I think people should think of this mass they want to attribute to things other than protons as borrowed mass and name it accordingly so people don't get confused.

It smells like a duck, and it is quacking like a duck, Occam and I agree that the neutrino is just another type of photon.

edit on 2-4-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
upload.wikimedia.org...

Schwebungsfall.svg

It quacks just like a duck.

But the potential of this new technology, is fantastic just as any miniaturization has been in the past.

So if you wanted to know how you can garner information about the density of space-time then you keep in mind the inverse square law, and you can predict the wave crest, and the wave strength at certain locations, and if when measured at those locations the results do not match with theory and normalization such as testing done in a controlled environment, then you can project your results into the medium of space-time and determine such things as the conditions for chemical reactions, and various other things beside pure science and really right now we want to know about the quantum foam. That is a mystery that we want to understand.

You want to know something interesting which is behind this research? Well how is it that things in our universe exist in a set. Between two points is not infinity, we are only able to touch or be in certain places between those two points. There is no continuous path between them, it doesn't matter. Our preconceived notions that things slide along smoothly continuously on a surface are an illusion based on our mental processing time.

I mean you flip 60 frames per second and it seems continuous and smooth but we know its not. So you see we are arriving at some fundamental philosophical answers from this study.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
I think they want us to think this through ourselves.

The neutrinos from supernova 1987A arrived several hours before the visible light.

Gravity wells might effect photons more than neutrinos.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
So why is it we always think that infinity must exist for us? What about pi? If pi is an infinite number then the universe must use infinite numbers in its makeup correct?
Not necessarily.

You see if you take a circle and you put a standing wave around it, then the mean diameter could be related to the circumference with an even result. So if a quantum foam bubble was built like that. then it would have a mean physical diameter, that was related to its circumference, but not the actual circumference, but then our physicality depends on the mean diameter, because that is where contact between these bubbles occurs.
So you could build a physical universe and never need pi as an infinite number.

edit on 2-4-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cauliflower
I think they want us to think this through ourselves.

The neutrinos from supernova 1987A arrived several hours before the visible light.

Gravity wells might effect photons more than neutrinos.



Well there are wavelengths of things that interfere and some that don't. So it was a surprise I am sure for most people, to find out that you could detect neutrinos with a big vat of cleaning fluid.

After hearing people say that you need 5 light years thickness of lead to block neutrinos.

So the secret is its size and then its wavelength and what it appears to me right at this point by reading between the lines they are saying hey, its a highly energetic spherical wave like an electron, that is acting like a transverse wave when it hits the target.
But if it is a spherical wave that would be good, because then you can expect a very long wavelength and a crest that would be predictable. And the reason they are spacing their detectors that way must be to try to increase the chances of detecting them by trying to place a detector at a crest of a wave. Like a wave front.
That will diminish in strength according to the inverse square law. So hypothetically you detect one here, then go a prescribed distance and you can expect to detect them better there.
But as waves then they can get interfered with, increased in strength, canceled out, and even tunnel through.

It is a cross between a radio wave and a photon. And both are useful. One is useful as a space telescope, and the other is useful for typical electronics including detecting substances and identifying them just by shooting a beam at them. And maybe war with the Chinese by shooting at the ground. Go right through the earth, and turn their chlorine purple blue.
You know their minds are working trying to weaponize it as we speak.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cauliflower
I think they want us to think this through ourselves.

The neutrinos from supernova 1987A arrived several hours before the visible light.


That was probably because the neutrinos weer emitted by the core collapse, while the light had to wait for the shock waves to reach the surface and blow the star apart.

So the 2 emissions were triggered by different events that were a few hours apart.

sorry - nothing to do with FTL neutrinos.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeforeTheHangmansNoose
Perhaps he was onto something and TPTB considered him a threat to their aged laws and decided to do away with him.


Perhaps he just stuffed up & his team were persisted off at him so it was time to leave.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
I am sure this is not going to help much but
www.lassp.cornell.edu...

You see as we are able to detect and control smaller and smaller processes we get closer to understanding the Riemann hypothesis.

Now this will sound like Chinese if you read it too but I will get to the point...
en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

You see what people are looking for is what it is about our universe that manages to cross the quantum leap.
As one example.

en.wikipedia.org...

And Riemann came up with a Riemann sphere a soccer ball and perhaps fundamental reality, lets say a quantum foam bubble, is shaped like a soccer ball.
We know its grainy down there because of vortices in a superfluid and we expect, that you would need an infinite amount of time to cross an infinite amount of space but there are two ways to look at it.
Either we can and are doing it constantly but just very quickly, or we are not.
Common sense tells us we are not, so then what is the magic formula then that is forcing this universe to deal with finite numbers and whole numbers and prime numbers and not infinite numbers like pi, which we assume is a fundamental quality of the universe. And yet its an infinite number as far as we can tell.

You see it has such deep philosophical meaning that it really is one of the greatest puzzles in science.
We have to accept such things as perfect elasticity to explain phenomena that we see, and yet the very idea of perfect elasticity seems to be impossible to us.
A rubber band you could stretch forever? How could that work? So you see we have to usually admit there are rules for things down there that are different than in the macro world.
And that is something we are not used to considering. That it would be natural to beam from spot to spot by nature and have it only appear to us like we are in continuous fluid movement.
And so then what is between spots? Are there other spots but we just can't land on those?
Its beginning to look like that is the case. Like Chinese checkers where the marbles fit in a spot, but not between.The only thing is you are using your hand to move them from spot to spot. So then maybe we are looking at a process that is doing that in a similar way.
Not God using his hand but something which makes jumps when it moves. Quantum leaps.
You know we are going to at some point arrive at a conclusion, that the quatum foam, is Plank length in diameter, is superfluid, makes contact with each other, but at that level of existence what it means to make contact we can't say. It is of course at this point some of the most complex leading edge math and physics since we are in virgin territory. Trying to apply macro concepts to a hidden mysterious world. Where the rubber meets the road.

edit on 2-4-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
I will tell you this though if we are really lucky, it will turn out that a quantum foam bubble is a miniature proton.

Everything would be so easy to deal with if it turns out to be something like that. It follows that waves in these bubbles behave as expected and everything fits.

If it is anything other than that, we will be stuck trying to find our way in the dark through trial and error hit and miss with nothing much to go on. Can you imagine if quarks had quarks? Do we really want to go there?
Anything but that.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



doing the same experiment several hundred times with the same error is not independent verification.


Several THOUSAND times, actually... lol


really? Who was that then?




CERN stunned the world when it announced last week it had clocked neutrinos moving between CERN labs in Switzerland and San Grass, Italy faster than the speed of light.

Since then physicists have been busy running calculations to confirm the findings, while also looking at data from 2007.

The four-year-old information comes from the Fermilab National Accelerator in Illinois and their MINOS experiment in Soudan, Minnesota that produced the same results found at CERN.


Because the Fermilab results were within a margin of error, no announcements were made at the time. CERN's results, however, are such a statistical certainty that were it not such an earth-shaking event, the news would already be considered a new discovery.

articles.businessinsider.com...



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Lets suppose we exist in an alien quantum computer, and lets just use a cube matrix of dots, now within this 3D matrix of dots, we can represent reality completely.

Just like we can turn pixels on and off on a screen and make a flight simulator.

Now before we start asking whats outside our cube, lets assume that for now, it is just the cube we are interested in.

So to activate a pixel in this matrix we merely give it a bit of energy and it will pulse.

Now with programming we can make those dots perform according to math rules and represent reality.

So what does this tell us? That there is probably something outside our universe, that is part of this system.

And like the current makes the pixel glow, it is making quantum foam bubbles appear to be like quantum foam.

And so then it merely decides according to the program, which spot a marble can fit into and how it should do that as if it were the Chinese Checker analogy. Jumps are fine, jumps are how it works.

That leaves us with the problems outside the box, but then we have no way of knowing if the normal laws of physics apply outside the box.
All we know is that inside the box, these are the rules and things follow those rules and jumps are the thing, whole numbers are the thing, and it can't be otherwise.

We may have to abandon the idea that this universe is self contained whereas it might be part of a larger
system.

Now before I get too complicated here, if you think of it as an alien cube that is a program, and follows math rules, it is predictable and runs like a computer program.

We can discover those rules without knowing what is making it work like that.

Consider that model, now consider the alternative. Where you have little bits of sand, grinding away at each other, and in all of that somehow gravity is there inside those bits and it is expanding or the space between sand particles is expanding and who knows. You see we have no idea at all how it could work if it isn't like the rest of the molecular and atomic and subatomic processes.

We already cheat by using statistics, since we don't have the precise formulas that would exist we hope in a unified theory.

If we consider an imaginary cube matrix we could model subatomic processes as if it were a computer much easier than if we try to discover how on earth you get from A to B across infinite space.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


That's one fast scientist! :



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by DJW001
 


I don't see why he had to step down. Maybe failure needs to be tolerated a little bit more in scientific community, at least when it's something so on the edge. This idea that if you're wrong once you'll never be able to redeem yourself is grinding science to a standstill in a lot of areas.


It's just one big giant circle jerk. That is all it is.

Find a single scientist or inventor...one...who became a household name, who wasn't considered fringe at best, or a complete outcast at worst, by the "mainstream scientific community," in their own time.

I do not hate science itself; but I do have an absolutely pitch black, passionate hatred of the type of attitude that considers itself authoritative where science is concerned. I hate the priesthood.


Newton or Hawking.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by petrus4

Find a single scientist or inventor...one...who became a household name, who wasn't considered fringe at best, or a complete outcast at worst, by the "mainstream scientific community," in their own time.


Einstein. von Neumann. Bohr. Planck. von Braun. Pauli. (could go on for quite some time)

You see, in most cases actual real science produces results that others can replicate, test, and falsify.

Or they make conjectures - this seems to be true but I can't find a proof.

Bedini, Bearden and to a big extent Tesla were or are not scientists. If that's the sort of person you think of when you use the word, that might be the problem.


When I tried suggesting that Tesla did nothing for science in another post, I was immediately shouted down by multiple fanboys. I pointed out that unlike Maxwell & etc. we don't have a "Tesla Equation" that we can use to do the engineering & science with.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001


Proof of the old adage: "If it seems too good to be true, it probably isn't" The news that neutrinos were detected rocked the world; if it were true, one of the fundamental principles of the theory of Relativity would have been undermined. Criticism of the findings were immediate, but were quickly embraced by the "alternative science" community. Repetitions of the experiment failed to reproduce the results, suggesting systematic error on the part of the OPERA team. In retrospect, it is clear that the team leader, Antonio Ereditato, rushed to publication against the better judgement of others on his team. This is not so much a reflection on Ereditato as it is on the dangers of internet driven publication; in the past, scientists had the leisure to review their work before submitting it to their peers. It could take years before a paper eventually found its way into a journal, and months after that before the findings were picked up by the popular media. Now, faced with the dictum "publish or perish," scientists are forced to release their results as quickly as possible, if only to "scoop" other researchers in the field. This has resulted in spurious "discoveries," such as superluminal neutrinos and arsenic breathing microbes. It is regrettable that the story has taken the course it has; Ereditato was no doubt a sincere and dedicated scientist. This should serve as a warning both to the scientific community to thoroughly check one's work, and to the general population to thoroughly evaluate the latest scientific results before accepting them as "fact."

www.spacedaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Hi djw,
Put a date on the LATEST scientific fact for me PLEASE. This should be a cake walk for a guy of your ego.
thanks ljb



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Ok so I will take you out on a limb now...

So as our model we have a 3d matrix of dots and we can use absolute space and just run a program, that pulses the fixed quantum foam bubbles such that to an observer or participant it appears as if motion is occurring and forces exist. In fact when we apply all known laws of physics it passes every test.

Now suppose it was a computer and had an operating system. Now we can assume that operating system has not changed since we have been around but if it did we might not be able to know.

We could speculate further and even consider the wild idea that we might be able to in some way interface with that OS. If you are an Illuminati or a Mason, put on your apron, say the magic words, we want to interface with the machine. Open sesame and the huge rock moves away from the cave as if by magic.
Lots of people think that the universe works like that.

If they did not see events in the world and relate them to things like ritual practice they would not continue to try to find the magic words.

We cannot exclude the possibility of computer operators.

Could we then, also find physics methods of using the program so that we could beam ourselves across the universe? Could we say lets copy or cut this section of matrix and paste it over here.

You see if we could, then we might be able to do things within this matrix of dots that ordinarily we might consider impossible.

If it is a computer program, then do we need to go outside the box to be able to do the types of things we would like to do which thus far seem to us to be a distant dream? Could we time travel?

You see the possibilities become real once you consider that there may be ways of getting around Newtons Laws by using the program to our advantage. And by that I do not mean find the magic words I do not believe in magic words. I mean can we interface with the program, as a different approach to physics as well as through normal physical means?

You see we are not looking at the program, we are looking at the screen figuratively speaking. And measuring the dots on the screen and counting them and trying to figure out why they change colors and even trying to see if the dots are changing colors because they have to. Because the laws of physics say they must according to hard and fast immutable laws.
Not because the operator wrote some code.
A novel approach might get us some new physics.

So what might that look like? Well maybe we are already doing it, in many ways in science and not realizing it.
Many people have almost superstitious ideas about creativity and problem solving and even going so far as to say that until we look, the cat is not dead.
If us looking is a part of the program, then we are using the program. So then what other ways are there?
edit on 2-4-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 




it is predictable and runs like a computer program.


Except it's not predictable because the program has input.

We cannot predict the input. Why? because we are not the intent controlling it. All you can do is observe any given moment and perceive the apparent change over time. And then apply predictive resolution.

This program is not eternal. It is not actual. Gravity could shut off tomorrow. You don't actually know anything. Just kidding



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join