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.

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

# 2 Simple Experiments that cause today's Scientists to curl up into the Fetal Positiion

page: 1
2
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 10:39 AM
1

The first experiment starts off as a 2 part thought experiment principally but we'll then move into the real world shortly.

Imagine that you could stick the Earth with a pin sort of like if you were in New Orleans and saw someone poking a needle into a voodoo doll. But imagine that pin was the length of, oh let's say one light years long. As the Earth rotates, the ends of that pin would travel FTL.

Now of course this isn't going to be possible in the real world because we would first need a space that wouldn't collide with anything else, or material that strong or that long etc etc etc

Okay so now imagine that you had one of those horseshoe magnets, but that the magnetic field at the end is infinitely strong and extends out for the same distance as that pin. You hold it in one of your hands and start twirling around akin to something you might see in the Sound of Music movie.

That magnetic field would move with you instantaneously. Not only that, but it would speed any particles in its way also at the speed of light and beyond.

Of course this is a thought experiment only.

Or is it?

That's exactly what our Electric Universe does, our Sun and our Galaxy. It's magnetic impulses go through space instantaneously, without any delay whatsoever. And the things like cosmic particles caught in their magnetic wake get sped up FTL.

Now to verify this for yourself, all you have to do is use the formula for kinetic energy:

Ek=1/2mv^2

Where a particle with 1au having 10 GeV travels well over the speed of light.

Kinetic Energy

2

Anybody remember back to their chemistry class? Remember what was released in an exothermic reaction to balance the equation? It's an electron. But then you took your physics class and they claim the EM energy released is a photon. What?

I remember having lots of debates with my physics teacher, but it was apparent that he could only think as much as was taught. I was always the bane of my teachers, being smarter than them. I especially had fun doing things on the Apple IIe that our computer instructor couldn't do. But that's neither here nor there I suppose. The point is the same is true on this forum. Nothing ever changes.

So watch the 'experts' come again to claim none of this is true, throw a tantrum, but can't debunk or falsify, and then get this moved into the highly speculative category yet again in a desperate and funny move of defeat. You're nothing if not predictable

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 10:46 AM
That's exactly what our Electric Universe does, our Sun and our Galaxy. It's magnetic impulses go through space instantaneously, without any delay whatsoever. And the things like cosmic particles caught in their magnetic wake get sped up FTL.

Now to verify this for yourself, all you have to do is use the formula for kinetic energy:

Ek=1/2mv^2

Where a particle with 1au having 10 GeV travels well over the speed of light.

--------
So to prove it is true - i have to assume it is true 1st by using FTL speed and above - kind of circular reasoning isn't it?
Or have i missed the point?
edit on 1-8-2013 by johnb because: comment

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 11:18 AM
To complicated for a mind like mine? Or not explained/written very well?

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 11:29 AM
reply to post by CircleOfDust

That "pin" would not move faster then light.. due to time dilation and the pin would curve like a spiral.
Its the same theory about yanking a Morse code with a light year long tube in space.. the motion would not even travel at the speed of light.. I read this in a scientific magazine.. I will see if I can dig up more.

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 11:35 AM

Originally posted by johnb

Now to verify this for yourself, all you have to do is use the formula for kinetic energy:

Ek=1/2mv^2

Where a particle with 1au having 10 GeV travels well over the speed of light.

--------
So to prove it is true - i have to assume it is true 1st by using FTL speed and above - kind of circular reasoning isn't it?
Or have i missed the point?
edit on 1-8-2013 by johnb because: comment

More like missed a proper physics education....
Firstly, your statement "where a particle with 1au..." is meaningless. The last time I looked "au" is the acronym for astronomical unit - the mean distance of the Earth from the Sun. That has no logical connection to your statement. I presume, therefore, you have made a typo or some other error. Secondly, your formula for kinetic energy pertains to Newtonian mechanics and is valid only for speeds much less than the speed of light. According to Special Relativity, the total energy of a particle of rest mass m and velocity v is: E = Mc^2, where
M = mc^2/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2.
The rest mass energy = mc^2. The kinetic energy is therefore:
E - mc^2.
Only when v is much smaller than c, does this approximate to (1/2)mv^2. You cannot use a formula that is valid only for speeds much less than the speed of light to prove that a particle has a superluminal velocity!
edit on 1-8-2013 by micpsi because: added material

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 11:39 AM
The information that Earth is rotating at a given velocity should take at least one light year to reach the end of the pin (assuming it is travelling at c). Conventional thought would dictate, assuming the pin is completely rigid, that every point along the pin is travelling at the same velocity, much like two parallel points on a vinyl record. So how would the end of the pin, one light year distant, "know" to travel at Earth's rotational velocity without the information travelling there instantly?

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 11:43 AM
reply to post by micpsi

mind blown

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 11:44 AM
Are you trying to prove that faster-than-light movement is possible? Your examples are kind of ridiculous. Why not just say "imagine something moving faster than the speed of light...". I feel like I'm missing the point here. Maybe you could go into even more detail about how smart you are. That might help.

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 11:53 AM
Similar ideas have been around for a while. Google quasars/superluminal. As of yet there have been no reports of scientists assuming fetal or other positions indicative of fear and grief. Actually, they tend to adopt the hunched over, application-of-brain-to-idea kind of posture. Not to be confused with the ever popular hunched over, spewing-bilious-rot-on-internet posture.

Here's a link for you from Harvard university. The author was last seen to be in an upright, definitely non-fetal position.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

edit on 1-8-2013 by mrwiffler because: stuff

edit on 1-8-2013 by mrwiffler because: more stuff

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 11:55 AM
reply to post by CircleOfDust

You are an ignorant fool. Every single one of your posts fully engross just how ignorant you are and how trolling seems to be your theme for ATS. Nothing you have said in any thread, which are all just your own opinions, hold any fact or grounding in reality at all. Your post here says it is a mind experiment...laughable at best. You say that "they" don't want us to know the real truth, so "they" are EVERY scientist in the world with real credentials?

I would love to hear what yours are, or are you self/internet taught? Can't wait to see your first article in any scientific journals based on your "in your mind" experiments.

You sound like another poster on this board with similar ideas and experiments in his mind...also very full of himself. Now worries.....life will beat you down eventually and you will be sad at just how wrong you have been about every experiment you do in your mind.
edit on 8/1/13 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Urantia1111
Are you trying to prove that faster-than-light movement is possible? Your examples are kind of ridiculous. Why not just say "imagine something moving faster than the speed of light...". I feel like I'm missing the point here. Maybe you could go into even more detail about how smart you are. That might help.

Yup, my thoughts exactly, there was more effort spent by the OP on expressing his vast intellect than on the thought experiment itself.

I appreciate what you are trying to say Circle, any attempt at putting forward alternative theories on our understanding of the universe should be applauded, but your means of expressing them do come across rather arogant. Also thought experiments are fine, but are made rather redundant when you break laws of physics to explain them...a light year long needle as has been said above would turn into a spriral, and surely it would take a lightyear for the information to propagate along the needle? Otherwise again that info would have to travel faster than the speed of light...or have I missed something also?

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 12:29 PM
Problem OP?

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 12:55 PM
I empathize with your battles with instructors. I tested on the standardized achievement tests as a junior year in college level in science, when I was in 5th Grade (the old way they would express the results - I guess I should have asked "which college?"
). And of course, my school administrators did exactly what was necessary such a situation, ...they asked me how I was able to cheat. I had already been declared stupid long ago, so that was the simplest explanation, and no other could be considered. So... I remained a dummy in their eyes, until my high school guidance counselor convinced the school to try an alternative, and they put me in chemistry and physics my frosh year. After that my world changed dramatically. All the 'straight A' students from my class? Well, two are terrified and disillusioned engineers at Mega-Corp USA, and the rest are selling real estate/insurance back in my home town or are unemployed. Sometimes, as I might infer from your OP, sometimes intelligence involves not just following rules.

That being said however, I am not sure that one can, solely from the formula for kinetic energy, validate a condition wherein objects conventionally move as tachyons. This is a formula for deriving the kinetic energy of a closed system mass, based on velocity of the system mass, not a formula for deriving velocity based on total system Energy.

The best we can hope for inside a system energy contribution to velocity, is to establish that an electromagnetic wave is Lorentz Invariant, and therefore can travel at or near the speed of light and through space. This includes both its electrical and magnetic aspect; however neither moves faster than the speed of light as you cite.

Newton, and a good part of the science community for some time, presumed that gravity moved instantaneously relative to the space between two masses; however was proved wrong by recent experiments by by Ed Fomalont of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), and Sergei Kopeikin of the University of Missouri. Sadly, gravity also is bound by the speed of light.

The equation you seek is E = m[1−(v/c)²]−½ which is the relativistic equation regarding the relation of velocity to mass and Energy. Here, once velocity v of mass m exceeds the speed of light c then E becomes an imaginary number. Keeping E real provides the formulation for an asymptotic limit to the velocity of mass m, which is c - with a hyperbolic contribution of energy E being required to take a mass close to that limit.

However, if you are attempting to force a construct which leaves no option aside from the relative velocity of two particles exceeding the speed of light, then consider that the Universe is measured by the best estimates, to be 13.8 billion years old, while the size of the visible universe is 15 billion light years. So, if I am a particle on the East ordinate of the inflative Universe moving outward from original singularity, what is my relative velocity compared to a particle on the West ordinate of the inflative Universe moving outward in the opposite direction? These two particles moved 15 billion light years apart from each other in 13.8 billion years.

edit on 1-8-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 01:38 PM

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
That magnetic field would move with you instantaneously. Not only that, but it would speed any particles in its way also at the speed of light and beyond.
Electromagnetic fields propagate at the speed of light, not instantaneously. Quantum entanglement may be instantaneous or so close to it we can only say it's at least 10,000 times faster than light, but gravity and electromagnetism aren't instantaneous.

That's exactly what our Electric Universe does, our Sun and our Galaxy. It's magnetic impulses go through space instantaneously, without any delay whatsoever.
ditto. Again this claim is contradicted by experiment.

Now to verify this for yourself, all you have to do is use the formula for kinetic energy:

Ek=1/2mv^2
micpsi got you on this one. This is not the formula for kinetic energy unless v is much less than c.

Anybody remember back to their chemistry class? Remember what was released in an exothermic reaction to balance the equation? It's an electron. But then you took your physics class and they claim the EM energy released is a photon. What?
No. There is no requirement for an electron to be "released" in an exothermic reaction, in the sense that you end up with a free electron the way a photon can be emitted. The molecules after the reaction can have the same number of electrons as the molecules before the reaction, meaning no electrons were lost, in many exothermic reactions. Take the exothermic reaction of table salt for example:

wps.prenhall.com...

The neutral sodium atom loses an electron to the neutral chlorine atom, and afterwards the sodium ion is positively charged (missing an electron) and the chlorine atom is negatively charged (has an extra electron). The electron simply moved from one atom to another, as shown by the green curved arrow above.

In the thermite exothermic reaction, which is used in underwater welding for example, you can see light so photons are being emitted. So in the case of thermite, your physics teacher was right. Your chemistry teacher might have been right too and you were so busy thinking you were smarter than him/her that you failed to understand exothermic reactions.

I was always the bane of my teachers, being smarter than them. I especially had fun doing things on the Apple IIe that our computer instructor couldn't do. But that's neither here nor there I suppose. The point is the same is true on this forum. Nothing ever changes.
I don't know how well you score on an intelligence test, but what you have done on this forum is brag about how smart you are, whilst simultaneously demonstrating your profound ignorance of simple things like kinetic energy and exothermic reactions. If you really are smart, you should have pursued an education so you could contribute something besides a demonstration of your failure to grasp simple concepts.

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:16 PM
As we all know there are two features of troll posts to look out for:

First, the "you're just too scared to know the truth" type. Which literally translates as "you're too level headed to accept my fantasy".

Secondly is the appeal to authority. When a poster has to [erroneously] present himself as the 'authority', you know he's blatantly wrong.

Sorry OP, but you not very smart at all. Perhaps, instead of trolling science forums, you'd do better investing you time in learning real things. Like basic physics.

Have a nice evening!

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 05:42 PM

Originally posted by johnb
That's exactly what our Electric Universe does, our Sun and our Galaxy. It's magnetic impulses go through space instantaneously, without any delay whatsoever. And the things like cosmic particles caught in their magnetic wake get sped up FTL.

Now to verify this for yourself, all you have to do is use the formula for kinetic energy:

Ek=1/2mv^2

Where a particle with 1au having 10 GeV travels well over the speed of light.

--------
So to prove it is true - i have to assume it is true 1st by using FTL speed and above - kind of circular reasoning isn't it?
Or have i missed the point?
edit on 1-8-2013 by johnb because: comment

The only variable that's missing is velocity, that's what you're solving for.

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 05:44 PM

Originally posted by misscurious
To complicated for a mind like mine? Or not explained/written very well?

It could be the latter, I try to make things as easy as possible, but I don't always succeed. My significant other won't proofread my ramblings anymore.

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 05:45 PM
reply to post by Spacespider

That's dependent on whether you place your trust in Relativity. I don't.

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 05:46 PM
reply to post by micpsi

That's a good try, but since you don't understand even what au is, it doesn't surprise me that you weren't up to the challenge.

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 05:47 PM

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
I remember having lots of debates with my physics teacher, but it was apparent that he could only think as much as was taught. I was always the bane of my teachers, being smarter than them. I especially had fun doing things on the Apple IIe that our computer instructor couldn't do. But that's neither here nor there I suppose. The point is the same is true on this forum. Nothing ever changes.

So watch the 'experts' come again to claim none of this is true, throw a tantrum, but can't debunk or falsify, and then get this moved into the highly speculative category yet again in a desperate and funny move of defeat. You're nothing if not predictable

It's a shame your physics teacher couldn't extend his mind to fantasy land too.

I guess you spent a number of hours on wiki to spectacularly misappropriate a secondary school level formula like that.

I'm off to message the mods to get this thread moved in case humanity realises the whole of science is a sham...

new topics

2