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

reply to post by OblivionGate


That's the conundrum that conventional (read: old/outdated) science can't handle.

reply to post by Urantia1111


I think it's very simple, that even someone with average IQ can understand. This stuff doesn't take super genius level, just some pure basic stuff..

reply to post by mrwiffler


Where did Bush jr graduate from?

reply to post by Vasa Croe


That's a lot of verbosity for someone to say, "I can't debunk what you wrote."

Understood, thanks.

Oh, and I would love to figure out who you're referring to. Sounds like my kind of guy.

reply to post by doorhandle


The way someone comes across is usually dependent on the position of the other person.

Originally posted by luciddream
Problem OP?

I'll quote that, because that was funny

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic


Well your thoughts were good to read, thanks. Yes, many days in detention for my troublesome butt!

reply to post by Arbitrageur


You know by your replying you're also saying that the ones who put forth their answer to my problem weren't adequate enough. Think about it. And some might be fooled, but not me. Good try though.

The real problem with having access to everything at your finger tips to search for is that you have to have a basic understanding of the universe first, and the information that you're fed isn't going to include that. So you're off on a bad foot from the very get go. It's no wonder you can't see things clearly.

reply to post by MarsIsRed


Thanks for being another person to prove my point about other throwing tantrums, when they can't debunk squat.

Circle, does the screen name mnemeth1 mean anything to you?

Anyway, if you dropped the arrogant stance you may contribute something interesting for others to think about, which you have done already.

reply to post by CircleOfDust


You will notice in my post, I had to make several assumptions to work out the problem. As a poster before me stated, the information (that Earth is rotating) would travel much like a wave along the length of the pin, and I can surmise it would take much longer than a year for the information to travel the distance needed to reach the far end. Take a rope one meter in length and "whip" the rope. You will notice that the energy travels like a wave from one end to the other in a given amount of time (and it's certainly greater than 1/299,792,458 seconds). Now imagine doing that with a rope 299,792,458 times longer...

reply to post by EasyPleaseMe


How do I look up the screen name with posts?

reply to post by OblivionGate


That's the assumption I don't make. Magnetic impulses travel instantly.

reply to post by CircleOfDust


Your right. You are a incredibly smart. Possibly the smartest person here. Good for you.

CJ

reply to post by ColoradoJens


Even if it's sarcastic, I'll take it.

Several members have already explained your "thought" experiments quite well. You really should spend a bit of time looking at their post counts, before you inanely say that they didn't debunk your theories.

You would also do well by not sounding so arrogant. It's a turnoff for people reading. It makes you sound like a jerk. Every person that took the time to read and post here now has formed a lasting impression of you. Nobody here (honestly) has to brag about how smart they are, because you know what?

You're in the Science forum. Think about what that means.

I have this forum as a "Favorite" in myATS, so when I was reading tonight, I really wanted to read a new experiment, or two, that were recently developed. The title itself, was a clue to the content I would find. Being a grammar nazi, mispelling positiion in a thread title is simply an indication of sloppiness, and lack of proofreading.

I'm not trying to be rude, just indicating areas that may need improvement in your posting skills.

It's an interesting thought experiment, but I'm curious how it would work in a modified relativistic environment. Do a simulation where the speed of light is not interpreted as a constant, but a coefficient. (Accounting for time dilation and gravitational effects. Time in this interpretation/simulation is also localized and relativistic, treat it as if there is no universal clock.)

Doing it that way would imply that the same experiment would then fork into two outcomes relative to where the observation is being made.

From the point of the view of the accelerated hypothetical object endpoint, it seems FTL would work fairly similar to the way you described it.

However, from an observer outside the accelerated system - events would have to conform to the limit imposed by the coefficient of c. The result is that it would be a spiral curve. The energy involved to accelerate past c would produce a time-dilation gradient. (It's like a buffer or upper bound. The passage of time changes to keep everything in conformity with the coefficient of c.) The interpretation of that effect (not properly accounting for time-dilation) would be that the object is behaving as if it were gaining mass as it approaches the speed defined by c. The effect appears as acceleration being limited and endpoints end up trailing in (apparent) angular velocity. You end up with a spiral that appears to have "missing" mass.

I occasionally entertain odd ideas myself, because that's how I roll. Yeah the version with split outcomes sounds about as nutty as anything anybody could come up with, but then again with stuff that can't be readily explained by prevailing theory (or the current interpretation thereof) there might be a little something to that.

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
reply to post by EasyPleaseMe

 

How do I look up the screen name with posts?

'Search' on the top toolbar then find a post from mnemeth1 and under his avatar select 'Member->View Posts'

reply to post by micpsi


lol not my formula as you can see i copied it from OP and it didn't make sense to me either. But then its 30 yrs since i did any physics at school.

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
reply to post by Vasa Croe

 

That's a lot of verbosity for someone to say, "I can't debunk what you wrote."

Understood, thanks.

Oh, and I would love to figure out who you're referring to. Sounds like my kind of guy.

Not sure how anyone can debunk a thought experiment because in your own head it works. Try reasoning with a schizophrenic that the voices are only in their head....you can't.

And the other poster signed up about the same time you did and has similar thoughts on how he is correct about everything because he can do "experiments" in his mind..

Here is a link to one of his threads to get you started... Thread

Maybe you and he and start a mind experiment thread and debunk one another in your minds, present your evidence to ATS and give us all a really good laugh...

Keep trolling......