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: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


'Faster than light' scientist steps down ?

If the Scientist is faster than light? Why is he stepping down?

Hasn't he PROVED his theory correct?





posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
If, when we look, we collapse the wave function, we are the mouse click.

Now let me give you a second one. A more metaphysical one. Reality always wants a way out of the situation.

For some strange unknown reason you can push the envelope a good ways but at some point it all has to fit.

You can see and report a million UFOs but you cannot have one sitting on the white house lawn because then there would be too much explaining to do and at this point reality says they don't exist for us.

You can believe the cat is alive and take the box for a walk, and you know treat it like it was your pet, and not look in the box for fear the cat is dead. Refuse to collapse the wave function. However you see at some point it will begin to smell as reality always needs a way out of a paradoxical situation.

The information that is important is you can push the envelope. Reality is though that at a point, you cannot push it beyond reason.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
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


Well you are the one that said several hundred originally - sorry you were wrong....but in any case - 1 or 10,000 - and that makes it different how??




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...


So then no-one has since independently confirmed the results at all, and the 2007 Fermilab data is only from 1 source, not "at least two" as you said, and did not "confirm the results" at all, being within the margin of error.

Glad to have helped you get through that bunk



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I think we would be tickled pink if we could ever find a little tool like a neutrino that we could use to pulse those dots in the matrix just so, so that we could copy or cut and paste reality across space and time.

But they travel at c, so we can't play God from in here.

We would have to get someone or something that is outside the box to do the work for us. That is how we could use the computer to our advantage to do things that otherwise might be impossible.

Just by changing our model to a 3D matrix, as opposed to a fluid matrix of bubbles that are always moving, all of a sudden we can think of novel ways of reproducing what we see around us.
If it were us and it was our computer program we would apply this fractal algorithm and there would be clouds.
We are really close on many of these fronts by just approaching the subject from a different angle.

I suspect that if we think in terms of reverse engineering, from a computer perspective we will find methods using tools that we already have.
And any more tools we can get like neutrinos can only help us to do that more effectively.

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



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by neotech1neothink
reply to post by DJW001
 


'Faster than light' scientist steps down ?

If the Scientist is faster than light? Why is he stepping down?

Hasn't he PROVED his theory correct?


Hi neo
LAMO
Science sucks and bunnies are to love.
the best ljb



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rocketman7
If, when we look, we collapse the wave function, we are the mouse click.


Who made you look? If we are the mouse click, the one who makes you look is the finger clicking the hardware button to fire the mouse click event. It's a complicated program but the operator is not integrated. The Real operator. Truth in this non-reality is represented as a property. It's represented. Never actualized within the system. Unless you are a Christian.

waveCollapseButton.onClick(evt)[
collapseWaveForDelusionResponse(evt.iLookedHard, success)[
HapticResponse(HapticReponseTypes.FromDelusionRepsonse(success.type));
return fail(success);
]);
]



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



Well you are the one that said several hundred originally - sorry you were wrong


Meh... several hundred is contained within several thousand.


but in any case - 1 or 10,000 - and that makes it different how??


You guys are getting so predictable...

lol


and the 2007 Fermilab data is only from 1 source, not "at least two" as you said, and did not "confirm the results" at all, being within the margin of error.


The other result was another team working within the CERN facility... which is where the OPERA tests were being run... so... it's not really that far away.

I can see that you are not open to reason, actually...

Tell me, do you really believe that a loose cable was responsible for the 60+/- nanosecond discrepancy?

And conversely, do you believe that this scientist "Stepping Down" somehow dismisses the findings of the OPERA neutrino tests?

like, as in an ad homenim attack against the scientist, to refute the argument?


edit on 2-4-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because:




posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
this moron really think he was smarter
then old ALBERT E.? Get a grip dude m=mc2
edit on 2-4-2012 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh

Originally posted by F4guy

Originally posted by GLontra
This is obviously a cover up.

The neutrinos were REALLY faster than light.


If you're so sure of this, then you should have no problem in quantifying the rest mass of a superluminal neutrino. No? Or at least give us the proof.


Funny. If scientific america told you next week that neutrinos were faster than light would you setup your own particle accelerator to confirm it? Or just believe whatever they told you? hahaha. Proof.. yeah because that's what it's all about.


Thank you for that..some people believe that consensus is reality and there is no changing their minds.

Peace



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Ok what if, since the neutrino is also like a photon, we could make a neutrino laser?

arxiv.org...

What are they really suggesting?

Could we make a laser that can go through thousands of miles of solid rock, target an area with fine enough detail so that we could transmute or create an element in the same way we use lasers to create Einstein Bose Condensate only perhaps the reverse, where we take some quantum foam, (the background) and energize it until it is matter, and then tailor that matter to our needs as in could we then, copy atoms over there, and their states and then recreate them elsewhere?
Hypothetically with enough energy and precision and knowhow and computability we probably have the technology to get close to that. But the scale of the enterprise due to its complexity and the numbers of atoms makes it seem impossible today. But then who has looked at a 2 TB SATA III hard drive lately and imagined the speed at which that is read mechanically? Its mind boggling to think how far we have come.
And the accuracy? The timing? These are really amazing achievements we have made thus far. So there are lots and lots of atoms in our bodies, but there are only so many kinds of them and they are obeying rules.

So we might some day find out that we don't have to copy the state as if we took a snapshot, we just have use the same rules that are in effect. If a body is a body there are things you already know. So before we beam a person across space and time we should be able to make one and so then we would still need to copy them until we learned enough about them to just make one from a computer program.

You see what I am getting at? Using compression where at A and B both already have the bulk of the information needed and so you are only sending a small instruction set. The variables.
Its wood, its 3 foot square, a standard box we want to beam it, create one, destroy the second?

You see we can make small copies of atomic things but we have no equipment that could deal with large 3d areas of the object whereas, the 3d matrix, its program, has that ability. It has full operator control to change reality providing it uses the laws of physics. I have shown examples of that. There is a big gap in computing power between our systems and the matrix.
We shouldn't set our sights on too lofty a goal until we can actually do something with it as a tool and if that is a laser then we will need to know how accurate and what possibility there is that it could be used to alter matter.
At this point we just have something that goes through matter. And its not harmful since it is going through us a billion times a second already and all the time. But at the detector you might be able to detect what it went through and form an image of something like an X-ray.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 



this moron really think he was smarter
then old ALBERT E.? ...



I think you mean Einstein's Wife.



It is easily proven that Albert Einstein did not originate the special theory of relativity in its entirety, or even in its majority.1 The historic record is readily available. Ludwig Gustav Lange,2 Woldemar Voigt,3 George Francis FitzGerald,4 Joseph Larmor,5 Hendrik Antoon Lorentz,6 Jules Henri Poincaré,7 Paul Drude,8 Paul Langevin,9 and many others, slowly developed the theory, step by step, and based it on thousands of years of recorded thought and research. Einstein may have made a few contributions to the theory, such as the relativistic equations for aberration and the Doppler-Fizeau Effect,10 though he may also have rendered an incorrect equation for the transverse mass of an electron, which, when corrected, becomes Lorentz' equation.11

Albert Einstein's first work on the theory of relativity did not appear until 1905. There is substantial evidence that Albert Einstein did not write this 1905 paper12 on the "principle of relativity" alone. His wife, Mileva Einstein-Marity, may have been co-author, or the sole author, of the work.13



There is clearly a link between Einsteins success and his genius wife Mileva Maric. I would go as far as saying that she was a major contributor to theories he published for several reasons. When Mileva asks Einstein for money if he earns Nobel price he gives in without opposition. What kind of leverage she had for him to do so? Ever since they separated Einstein has not produced anything significant. His communication ability and founded on papers published in 1905 made him famous but all his future work was invalid and even contradictive of his famed work. If Mileva arrived to e=mc2, as a women scientist, she would have very difficult time being taken seriously. Finally, the whole secrecy about his first marriage is suspect as well.



edit on 3/4/12 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by popsmayhem
this moron really think he was smarter
then old ALBERT E.? Get a grip dude m=mc2
edit on 2-4-2012 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)


I dont mean to nit pick but its "E=mc2" I wish einstein would have finished his Unified theory. Imagine if that would have been done. It could have been a new scientific age right?



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Albert Einstine was a clerk in a patent office.
He basiclly stoled the theory.
Quite similar as to how Wattson and Crick stole the
shape for the double helix.
The three of these men are frauds that were published and embraced by what you dink acceptors here absorb.

The speed of light much like the EVENT HORIZON are myths developed by stagnated minds. Very much like some of the minds present in this forum.
Light is optical. All else is cerebral.
I have no spell check
ljb
edit on 4/3/2012 by longjohnbritches because: dinks



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Revolutionary scientific discovery is often met with resistance, take the discovery of heavy fissionable matter.


That lighter elements could be formed by bombarding heavy nuclei with neutrons had been suggested earlier (notably by the German chemist Ida Noddack in 1934), but the idea was not given serious consideration because it entailed such a broad departure from the accepted views of nuclear physics and was unsupported by clear chemical evidence. Armed with the unequivocal results of Hahn and Strassmann, however, Meitner and Frisch invoked the recently formulated liquid-drop model of the nucleus (see above) to give a qualitative theoretical interpretation of the fission process and called attention to the large energy release that should accompany it. There was almost immediate confirmation of this reaction in dozens of laboratories throughout the world, and within a year more than 100 papers describing most of the important features of the process were published. These experiments confirmed the formation of extremely energetic heavy particles and extended the chemical identification of the products.

Encyclopedia Britannica

The idea was "not accepted" because it went against the view scientists had at the time.

Then dam it all, U235 and later P239 were discovered and turned the scientific community around.

The first evidence of fission was actually earlier with some inaccurate observations of slow speed neutrons on certain elements.


The story of the discovery of nuclear fission actually began with the discovery of the neutron in 1932 by James Chadwick in England (see above). Shortly thereafter, Enrico Fermi and his associates in Italy undertook an extensive investigation of the nuclear reactions produced by the bombardment of various elements with this uncharged particle. In particular, these workers observed (1934) that at least four different radioactive species resulted from the bombardment of uranium with slow neutrons. These newly discovered species emitted beta particles and were thought to be isotopes of unstable “transuranium elements” of atomic numbers 93, 94, and perhaps higher. There was, of course, intense interest in examining the properties of these elements, and many radiochemists participated in the studies. The results of these investigations, however, were extremely perplexing, and confusion persisted until 1939 when Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann in Germany, following a clue provided by Irène Joliot-Curie and Pavle Savić in France (1938), proved definitely that the so-called transuranic elements were in fact radioisotopes of barium, lanthanum, and other elements in the middle of the periodic table.



Does anybody else notice a pattern similar with the recent claim of faster than light neutrinos?

To the poster that said" If is seems to good to be true....", well i guess that nuclear fission is not real and U235 and P239 either do not exist or are not fissionable, after all in the early to mid 30's if "it was to good to be true..".

My point, if one considers that anything is "impossible", remember the story of nuclear fission.

Imagine what those stuffy, self assured scientists in the 30's thought when the news of the first fission reaction of Uranium came out.I think it is very much like those scientists that ridicule Antonio Ereditato will feel when the world of quantum physics completely shatters the views they hold now.

Quantum Physics is quite the rabbit hole, and the deeper we go the stranger it gets.Why hang so tightly to past ideas and observations? Why close your mind so hard as to declare something "impossible"?
I think we are seeing the first clumsy steps into a new era of scientific understanding, much like the Enrico Fermi "trans uranium" experiments.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Can you imagine...


According to Jefferson Lab, an average 70 Kg person, that's about 150 lbs, will have approximately 7*10 to the 27th atoms in their body. That's 7 followed by 27 zeros (7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

The number of stars in the Universe, which is estimated at 10*10 to the 21, or 10 followed by 21 zeros. (10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).


So then what is easier, to recreate a body at B or to have bodies at A and B and beam your personality record, from A to B, and then at B, run AI software for intelligence, then use your personality record as a decision filter and then send a signal to the brain of the body at B, so that now you are at B?

You see once you break down artificial intelligence by reverse engineering how humans work, its not as complicated as you might think. If you recognize that humans are like biological robots.
They have a set of behaviors.
What about a feeling of self for instance? Well thankfully for us humans we have a subconscious mind that tells us things and we right away believe it. And its like pinging the server to ask the server if you are awake.
It is saying, you are awake. You do a systems check, are you in pain, are you hungry, it all adds up to being conscious.
Simple logic rules for memory and thinking like math rules or computation, senses for input from your surroundings, and the ability to take a snapshot of the moment and compare it with the next moment and then project linear fashion into the future moment now you have the feeling of time.

You see the ball coming, calculate its trajectory and you duck.

So it will be easier for us to send our consciousness than to make a body out of atoms in a snap.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Somthing that big you have to take a big risk.... ridiculous. If you conduct an experiment that turns relativity on its ear you had better make sure you have achieved a repeatable outcome and validate everything. The big risk he took was starting the experiment and make the scientific community aware of his hypothesis. Sorry but you are dead wrong in thinking jumping the gun is a necessity. It isnt. That is why this is science. What he did was the equivalent of these ghost hunter shows saying the equipment does x when a ghost is near. They cant even quantify a ghost. Pseudo science. Which is exactly the real he put opera into.

Someone else said the scientiffic community needs to bemore tolerant of failure. Most of science is failure and it is accepted. What hw did was unscientiffic and fraudulent. Thats why he resigned. He should have been fured. Fraud. Because he half assed it. He made a mockery oh his team and ser theoretical physics back a secade.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by atsmem1980

Originally posted by thebestnr1
he supposedly got it wrong a few weaks ago why step down now
i didnt read it because its all a cover up and therfore bs
einstein was wrong face it

i mean seriously would'nt u check double check and then double check a hundred more times before claiming somthing like that
seems REALLY REALY strange too me just saying
anyways al u science boys have to admit scientist CAN be wrong

and if he did get it wrong THANKS for wastin BILLIONS on failing equipment
good show ,no really...
edit on 2-4-2012 by thebestnr1 because: (no reason given)


or maybe he is right and has been selected to lead a secret project


if u didnt get wat i was saying i DO think he was wright
and although he might discovered it he wont be leading the investigation its time for the big boys to step in
he will just stay silent or have an accident,thats wat i think



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrJay1975
Somthing that big you have to take a big risk.... ridiculous. If you conduct an experiment that turns relativity on its ear you had better make sure you have achieved a repeatable outcome and validate everything. The big risk he took was starting the experiment and make the scientific community aware of his hypothesis. Sorry but you are dead wrong in thinking jumping the gun is a necessity. It isnt. That is why this is science. What he did was the equivalent of these ghost hunter shows saying the equipment does x when a ghost is near. They cant even quantify a ghost. Pseudo science. Which is exactly the real he put opera into.

Someone else said the scientiffic community needs to bemore tolerant of failure. Most of science is failure and it is accepted. What hw did was unscientiffic and fraudulent. Thats why he resigned. He should have been fured. Fraud. Because he half assed it. He made a mockery oh his team and ser theoretical physics back a secade.


I guess that means that Enrico Fermi should have been shunned and fired, after all he essentially got it wrong also.

Look at all the damage he did to theoretical physics at the time.Oh wait, he did not damage it, he took the first steps into a new era of atomic physics.

I have no idea how you can claim this as "fraud". Do you have a degree in physics or mathematics, and access to all the raw data, that makes you qualified to declare that what here was "fraud"? Can you not accept that maybe it is a slight misinterpretation of results much of likes of Enrico Fermi, that might eventually lead to a new understanding of physics?

Again, I urge you study up on how heavy matter nuclear fission was discovered, and you just might see a pattern repeating itself.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
I will take you one step further.

How different is it, to change the color of a pixel, compared to creating matter from the background by energizing it using lasers?

Well a pixel can be a range of colors.

And elements are in a table.

You change the color of pixels using electric current.

But what separates one element from another is the depth of its gravity well. Essentially. Its weight.

We know we can transmute elements so obviously we have already managed to affect that element and affect its gravity well.
We are not good enough at it to create 7 to the 27th atoms even if we had a billion laser array.
Bodies grow by themselves thankfully.

And pretty quickly and efficiently whereas we can't even imagine how we could create one from scratch if we had to.
Even chemical processes happen exponentially in a change of phase. We could not in a million years ever hope to change a substance one atom at a time yet in the proper circumstances using chemicals as an example voila its now a compound and its turned to jelly or something.

So we are far better off using natural means to an end than to try and do something from scratch when it comes to atoms.
Unless we just want to make some piece, some component or device.
Although we conceive of how it could be done, we can't conceive of us ever having the ability to do it.

But get outside the box, be sitting at a terminal, write some code and what could be easier than that?
That is something we can do today with our own programs.

In the movie the 5th element they reconstruct an alien from the hand using lasers well people can imagine how that can be done. Just don't consider what 7 to the 27th is divided by c.
en.wikipedia.org...

do the math for fun. c is the fastest anything can go. How long if you had one laser operating at c?
Would it help to have a billion lasers operating at light speed? Could you rebuild that alien from his hand one atom at a time?



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cauliflower

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?

no







 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join