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.
A tachyon ( /ˈtæki.ɒn/) or tachyonic particle is a hypothetical particle that always moves faster than light. The word comes from the Greek: ταχύς or tachys, meaning "swift, quick, fast, rapid", and was coined by Gerald Feinberg in a 1967 paper.[1] Feinberg proposed that tachyonic particles could be quanta of a quantum field with negative squared mass. It was soon realized that excitations of such imaginary mass fields do not in fact propagate faster than light,[2] and instead represent an instability known as tachyon condensation.[3] Nevertheless, they are still commonly referred to as "tachyons",[4] and such fields have come to play an important role in modern physics. Most physicists think that faster-than-light particles cannot exist because they are not consistent with the known laws of physics.[3][5] If such particles did exist, they could be used to build a tachyonic antitelephone and send signals faster than light, which (according to special relativity) would lead to violations of causality.[5] Potentially consistent theories that allow faster-than-light particles include those that break Lorentz invariance, the symmetry underlying special relativity, so that the speed of light is not a barrier. Despite theoretical arguments against the existence of faster-than-light particles, experiments have been conducted to search for them. No compelling evidence for their existence has been found.
Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by St Udio
Uhm.......
Could you clue us in on how we have detected the rays of a theoretical particle that has not been proven to exist yet?
I'm very curious to learn how we are detecting something before it's been proven to exist........
Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
these threads always deliver man.
you could write a book on psychology just from the de-bunkers egotistical hate filled agenda in this forum.
it's become more of a "how dare you post theory's on ATS, deny ignorance but don't deny what i say as fact because i'm an all mighty de-bunker and i know everything.!!!!!
i'm unsure why people feel the need to have others believe as they do and they do it in the name of truth. lmao
anyway it's quite a theory but a well thought out theory and one that doesn't seem to require anyone to believe it or not. the author never claimed if you don't believe me you're going to hell!!!! ahahaha no he just posted his theory and asked that anyone who reads it takes it for what you will, nothing more, nothing less.
i guess if i had a choice i would rather live with an earth full of harmless theorists than just one hateful egotistical de-bunker flunky.
my take on it, i would say like myth busters do, "it's plausible".
Originally posted by eriktheawful
Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
these threads always deliver man.
you could write a book on psychology just from the de-bunkers egotistical hate filled agenda in this forum.
it's become more of a "how dare you post theory's on ATS, deny ignorance but don't deny what i say as fact because i'm an all mighty de-bunker and i know everything.!!!!!
i'm unsure why people feel the need to have others believe as they do and they do it in the name of truth. lmao
anyway it's quite a theory but a well thought out theory and one that doesn't seem to require anyone to believe it or not. the author never claimed if you don't believe me you're going to hell!!!! ahahaha no he just posted his theory and asked that anyone who reads it takes it for what you will, nothing more, nothing less.
i guess if i had a choice i would rather live with an earth full of harmless theorists than just one hateful egotistical de-bunker flunky.
my take on it, i would say like myth busters do, "it's plausible".
Do us a favor.
Show me where in any of my posts in this thread where I am "hate filled"
Or would you rather ATS turn into GLP, where anyone who DARES question things, or show that things are factually wrong gets banned?
Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
Because you yourself came on here and grouped debunkers together in your post. Period.
When I say I find something hilarious or laughable, it because I do. I'm not going to sugar coat it because I think I'm going to hurt someone's feelings. If people are going to write about something and theorize, that is fine. If they are going to go out on a limb and propose something that is highly speculative, but feel they have supporting evidence, again, that is fine, even when it seems that what they are proposing is trying to rewrite the physics books, advances in these areas normally start with outlandish ideas.
But sitting down and writing a blog that pretty much is telling everyone that they are going to die come this December 23rd, is just asinine fear mongering. Especially when it becomes extremely obvious that they've had no formal education in areas of physics, astrophysics and astronomy that many of us on here have had (yes, I have).
If you are so politically correct that never in your entire life have you had someone make some very ignorant statements (especially areas that you are very knowledgeable or an expert at) that made you bust out loud laughing, then good for you.
But I suspect that you have humor in you too, especially after I read your joke several weeks ago posted on here about the weather experts predicting a long and harsh winter because the native americans were gathering so much wood..........
But we are now way off topic talking about ourselves and each other, and suggest that the thread return to the OP's topic: that the world will end on December 23rd this year because the sun is going to expand in to a red giant.
Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
my take on it, i would say like myth busters do, "it's plausible".
Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
the sheer and utter lack of data we have on our own solar system and our own galaxy, let alone black hole physics, seems to make many theories plausible, doesn't mean they are correct since we have no current way to prove otherwise.
i believe we have a universe that mirrors many things within our own solar system and galaxy, hell even our own bodies and i believe there are many occurrences that seem to take place in a timely manor and even some that do not. with our own sun we know it cycles from solar maximums to solar minimums. why could our own galaxy not have maximums and minimums associated with it?
why would the theory of a massive black hole in the center of our galaxy having these periods not be plausible? could you imagine the power of a black hole maximum on our solar system, perhaps one that occurs every 26k years, just blows my mind to think about it.
i can look at humans, our earth, the sun, our solar system, our galaxy and even perhaps our universe and see the potential that from atom to universe, things seem to be directly related to each other and they happen in a somewhat timely manor. would you agree?
my elders often mention the term, "as within as without" and i often wonder if this is what they were referring to, you know. fascinating to say the least.
Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
so you're saying you are not interested in discussing theory but more so in just acting like a child? many of your replies in this forum i have noted, were based solely on personal gratification at the expense of others, bravo you now can pat yourself on the back.