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.

 

Higgs Boson and Relativity FRAUD

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   
ufff...

how to start ?!

OK

Higgs Boson Wiki explanation
Heggs Boson in 3:27

millions over millions of money have bin spend to find this... whatever!

quick short Explanation from me on Higgs Boson, in case you don't want to go deeper into it:

all matter gets its mass from a spooky field called the Higgs field.
if a particle moves, it interacts with this field and so it gets it mass

so far so good


Einstein's relativity denies anything like Ether ( Eather ) otherwise the theory would be wrong.
well, it actually is ( no details now )
later, Einstein denies his own theory saying Ether exists, what simply revokes all he "discovered"

back to Higgs

if there is an Ether, made of Higgs fiels... than I have a question

if movement in this Higgs field creates mass... right?
what happens if I don't move relative to this filed??
Am I massless ??

next question refers to the "low of conservation of energy"

we all know so called "gravity"
it's an acceleration force, simply said, right?

well, used energy (converted into motion) should consume the mass it is creating or not?
is the Earth decreasing in mass all the time?? NO!

I see... gravity is not a force but a property of space... OK

property of something generates no force, it is an ability to behave such way and not other in response to external influence.

so, Higgs Boson particles create the Higgs field that gives all particles a mass ( except EM waves ( sure, is just a disturbance))... gains energy from expanding Universe ( ??? more and more space for ever, -relating to the Big-(fraud)-Bang theory of Universe expanding )... and somehow all stay the same, for billions of Years.

must be something we don't know and will never see that will explain all this... like Dark Matter
at 7:10 she says the truth, "made of thin air"... BS in my words


cool




PS:
1. if you want to troll... stay away
2. religion is BS, don't post, will be ignored!
3. It can take some time till I respond

Mary Christmas

edit on 14-12-2013 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



+14 more 
posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 09:36 PM
link   

KrzYma
Einstein's relativity denies anything like Ether ( Eather ) otherwise the theory would be wrong.
well, it actually is ( no details now )
later, Einstein denies his own theory saying Ether exists, what simply revokes all he "discovered"
This site used to have the motto "deny ignorance". It's time to deny yours.

You don't understand the video you posted. First you have to understand that there were at least 5 or 6 different things being called "aether". One was the "luminiferous aether".

Einstein was referring to something other than luminiferous aether (notice he didn't call it that). What Einstein said in your video is that space and time are not devoid of properties and that's why he said it had an "aether" which he also referred to as a "new aether" though your video doesn't mention this, but this was a different concept than luminiferous aether. I suppose because it was too confusing to use the word "aether" to refer to so many different things and make Einstein's usage of the term "new aether" the 6th thing that would be called "aether" when there were 5 other things already, that term never caught on, but we don't deny Einstein's concept...we just call it something else today:

"Space-time".

Ever heard of that? That's the terminology we use today regarding what he's talking about.

Luminiferous aether

Einstein sought to reconcile the theory of relativity with his mentor's cherished concept of the aether. In this lecture Einstein stressed that special relativity took away the last mechanical property of Lorentz's aether: immobility. However, he continued that special relativity does not necessarily rule out the aether, because the latter can be used to give physical reality to acceleration and rotation. This concept was fully elaborated within general relativity, in which physical properties (which are partially determined by matter) are attributed to space, but no substance or state of motion can be attributed to that "aether" (aether = curved space-time).

One thing you have to remember is that physicists use mathematics extensively to describe things...and this math also differentiates the qualities of the different concepts, so someone may think the words "luminiferous aether" and "new aether" sound similar, but when we look at the math of "new aether" or "space-time", versus the math of luminiferous aether, there's no confusion between the concepts.

Further, about your claim that "Einstein's relativity denies anything like Ether", I'm not aware that it does. What's your source for this? Here in Einstein's own words is a contradiction to your claim:

Aether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein, PhD

the Special Theory of Relativity does not compel us to deny the Aether.

edit on 14-12-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Basically everything the OP wrote is wrong. Someone already beat me to it and posted why. You have to WANT to be ignorant to think such things.


More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it.

-Albert Einstein
www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk...



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


cool, sure !
but how does it explain anything I've asked ?

I see you must be an relativist to the core... sorry my thinking is different
OK, look, I'm studding this stuff for over 15 Years now. I do know your point !

Ignorance is not what I do, ignorance is what all students do not questioning this theory..

but lets talk



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


OK, if there is an aether, what happens if I don't move relative to it ???
again... Higgs field gives the mass as particles moves through it, what if they not? no mass ???

look closer to this relativity of Albert.. all works if the velocity is constant, no circular motion no curves, and if, switch back to the general relativity


sorry guys, but all this is an assumption, and you tell me I am ignorant ???

you are ignorant not questioning it !!

please listen to this, I don't agree to all he is saying, but he hits the point
guy talking physics
edit on 14-12-2013 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


BTW.. why are you attacking me ? you say I don't know, I don't understand, I'm ignorant...

I just asked some questions.

If you don't feel conform with this questions nobody is asking you to rely



just to be said



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Can you provide a point of reference for me?

Can you tell me at which point you would never be moving? To have the question you pose, answered, I'd like to know what you are referring to when you ask that.

Do you mean, just standing still?



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   

KrzYma
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


OK, if there is an aether, what happens if I don't move relative to it ???

As we already explained the aether you talk about is NOT the ether Einstein said existed. Your statement makes no sense.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Why don't you then explain the difference with a suitable explanation because obviously the explanation before hand wasn't understood or adequate enough.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


again "Basically everything the OP wrote is wrong" ...how comes ??

do I ask the wrong questions ??

answer one so I can gain more knowledge



IGNORANCE, as I understand, is avoiding the truth answer



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   

winofiend
Can you provide a point of reference for me?

Can you tell me at which point you would never be moving? To have the question you pose, answered, I'd like to know what you are referring to when you ask that.

Do you mean, just standing still?


this is exactly the point. I can NOT give you any point of reference to the Higgs field. nobody can!
therefore the Higgs field is another made up field to fit the calculus of some theory

I'm asking, not explaining,... now



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   

KrzYma


if movement in this Higgs field creates mass... right?
what happens if I don't move relative to this filed??
Am I massless ??



No because particles in your body cease to stop moving.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   

AthlonSavage
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Why don't you then explain the difference with a suitable explanation because obviously the explanation before hand wasn't understood or adequate enough.





I don't think you will ever get any answer to this, relativists are so confused with they own fraud theory...
they will tell you either ignorant or you just can't get it...



edit on 14-12-2013 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Antipathy17

KrzYma


if movement in this Higgs field creates mass... right?
what happens if I don't move relative to this filed??
Am I massless ??



No because particles in your body cease to stop moving.



...I wasn't referring to my body as atoms in space, it was more abstract, referring to any, lets say.. electron, somewhere.. not moving in the so called ether or Higgs field

I'm myself nothing, just bunch of... whatever they call it



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by KrzYma
 



if movement in this Higgs field creates mass... right?
what happens if I don't move relative to this filed??
Am I massless ??

The analogy typically given is to imagine the Higgs Field like a thick soup or something, so that larger particles with more mass have a harder time moving through it. The easier a particle is able to move through the field, the less mass it is said to have. Photons are said to feel the field less than any other particle because they have no rest mass, so they move faster than any other particle (the speed of light).

EDIT: also I should point out that the standard theory is that if there was no Higgs Field then all particles would move at the speed of light. Do I personally believe all this Higgs Field stuff? No not really... it's just not entirely convincing as a theory imo.


we all know so called "gravity"
it's an acceleration force, simply said, right?

well, used energy (converted into motion) should consume the mass it is creating or not?

If you pull two large objects apart, that is what requires energy. When the two bodies move back together it expends that energy and they move back to the lowest energy state. Like when a rocket leaves the Earth, it takes a lot of energy in the form of burnt rocket fuel. Imagine it like stretching a rubber band, when you pull the band apart it gains potential energy which causes it to snap back to the lowest energy state when you let it go.
edit on 14/12/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

edit on 14/12/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 11:06 PM
link   

AthlonSavage
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Why don't you then explain the difference with a suitable explanation because obviously the explanation before hand wasn't understood or adequate enough.



I posted what Einstein said.

Einstein denied luminiferous ether. He never retracted that, he never said luminiferous ether existed. What Einstein said is an ether of some sort may be possible, so long as ALL mechanical properties are removed.

The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

Then the OP starts talking about .. you guessed it .. motion.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   

KrzYma

AthlonSavage
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Why don't you then explain the difference with a suitable explanation because obviously the explanation before hand wasn't understood or adequate enough.





I don't think you will ever get any answer to this, relativists are so confused with they own fraud theory...
they will tell you either ignorant or you just can't get it...



edit on 14-12-2013 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

Except I did answer and used quotes from Einstein proving you flat out lied about what Einstein said.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Space shuttle launch is interesting. 14000 mph needed to break the earths gravity. that is around the same speed the upper atmosphere is traveling with the earth compared to motionless space. so is there a connection between the two? Anything less than that 14000 mph and you would be standing still and never break the bond. A couple mph more and you have just enough to break free.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   

JBA2848
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Space shuttle launch is interesting. 14000 mph needed to break the earths gravity. that is around the same speed the upper atmosphere is traveling with the earth compared to motionless space. so is there a connection between the two? Anything less than that 14000 mph and you would be standing still and never break the bond. A couple mph more and you have just enough to break free.

No, which is evident by the fact that the Moon travels at the same speed and yet is easy to lift off from.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


But the moon is also missing the gravity and atmosphere the earth has. Not to mention the size and rotation.
edit on 14-12-2013 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join