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.
Good question and the answer is complicated. I've never seen a better explanation than Richard Feynman's which starts off by explaining how mirrors and even a reflective surface of a pane of glass posed theoretical difficulties for centuries:
originally posted by: KrzYma
Question !
all experiments with light, have bin done with mirrors (matter).
what gives you the certainty the correct answer is what you get?
is it the property of light or maybe the property of the apparatus you deal with ??
I could imagine lots of things including that, however we are not constrained by our imagination but by observation which shows that electric fields don't propagate faster than c.
I would be forced to argue, it appears it must mean, that there is 'something' (not nothing) in between the masses, which allows what would be a straight path through pure nothingness, exist as not a pure straight path through not pure nothingness.
originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: ImaFungi
just started reading.. but this statement makes no sense in my mind
Imagine absolutely nothing existed,
if I imagine, it exists, so it is NOT nothing !
NOTHING is a term to describe "something"
but I'm still reading your post...
...
originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: ImaFungi
I would be forced to argue, it appears it must mean, that there is 'something' (not nothing) in between the masses, which allows what would be a straight path through pure nothingness, exist as not a pure straight path through not pure nothingness.
there is !!! the time it takes for the EM field to transfer the "information" depending on the field density.
field density *(proton + electron = 2 density with charge of 0)
You're the one claiming it's faster than c, where's your experiment showing that?
originally posted by: KrzYma
could you please point me to the experiment which determines the speed of electric field ??
not the electromagnetic field as combination of those two like it is said in the theory, but just the electric field ??
Entanglement is a FTL correlation between two or three particles. But I thought we were discussing your explanation of gravitational lensing, no? When photons are used in entanglement experiments, they are sent to their destinations at the speed of light, then at the destinations a faster than light correlation is measured if the photons are entangled. But they don't get to their destinations faster than the speed of light, and they don't carry electric charge.
entanglement is the electric connection, and I told you it's many billions times faster than the magnetic field
I'd start with the video in the OP by Sean Carroll, about which interpretations of quantum mechanics are popular among physicists. The nature of entanglement varies by those interpretations.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Can you try to think of one other hypothetical and/or theoretical, physical explanation for the observation of entanglement, besides;
That depends on where you look. In our own solar system and in some galaxies like NGC 3379, there doesn't appear to be any significant amount of dark matter, while in some other galaxies there appears to be larger than average amounts of dark matter. Overall the ratio of dark matter to visible matter is something like 8 or 9 to 1.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur
How much missing mass is estimated to be thought to be dark matter?
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
That depends on where you look. In our own solar system and in some galaxies like NGC 3379, there doesn't appear to be any significant amount of dark matter, while in some other galaxies there appears to be larger than average amounts of dark matter. Overall the ratio of dark matter to visible matter is something like 8 or 9 to 1.
The Triangulum galaxy aka M-33 is in the "local group" so it's fairly close. Here is the rotation curve we'd expect for luminous matter versus the actual rotation curve, the difference thought to be caused by non-luminous matter aka dark matter:
originally posted by: ImaFungi
So can you choose 1 galaxy, maybe the closest galaxy to us, which has a significant amount of dark matter?