Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Irony of borrowing from nothingness concept


	Not logged in [Login ]

FAQ

Member List

Today's Posts Forum Stats

Stats

Back to:

Sciencemadness Discussion Board » Fundamentals » Miscellaneous » Irony of borrowing from nothingness concept

Printable Version

Pages: 1 2 3

Morgan

International Hazard

Posts: 1660
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 28-1-2012 at 12:58

Reflections of a Bonehunter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC1CGr1qoUE#t=32s

[Edited on 28-1-2012 by Morgan]

Vogelzang

Banned

Posts: 662
Registered: 26-4-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 28-1-2012 at 14:28

neptunium

National Hazard

Posts: 985
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline

posted on 29-1-2012 at 09:15

thats a little too big for my weak connection but i get the point..

Rosco Bodine

Banned

Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

posted on 29-1-2012 at 10:31

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibre_optic_gyroscope

It all leads inexorably to the deeply philosophical but plainly rhetorical question......

In a fiber optic universe, what would any homing pigeon most likely employ for guidance?

[Edited on 29-1-2012 by Rosco Bodine]

AndersHoveland

Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!

Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 29-1-2012 at 13:04

Quote: Originally posted by neptunium

Neutrinos DO have a mass indeed o.o7 ev ! small ! granted, and a very discrete cross section but absolutly no potential for traveling over the speed of light at all!

The relation between mass and momentum could actually be a generalization rather than a fundamental law, meaning it might seem to hold true, but is inadequate to describe certain extreme conditions. This would be analogous to how Newtonian physics was later discovered to be a generalization that does not completely hold true under extremely high velocities.

The anti-electron neutrinos from the SN 1987A supernova event were observed to arrive at almost at the same time as the light, indicating that the neutrino speed did not exceed the speed of light. These neutrinos had typical energies of 10 MeV.

The OPERA experiment seemed to show that muon neutrinos, of an energy around 20-40 GeV, could slightly exceed the speed of light. The measured difference in velocity was only around 7 km/sec, which is extremely small compared to the speed of light or other fast moving particles at these energies.

One possible explanation that would explain the difference between these two observations are that the higher energy muon-neutrinos would have less interaction. Muons, for example, only weakly interact with matter, and can therfore penetrate through matter with even more ease than gamma rays or neutrons. Muons can go through 6 to 8 feet of steel without being stopped. Higher velocities are also known to reduce probability of interaction and lead to more penetrating power.

The effective limit in velocity as a particle approaches the speed of light could be caused by interaction with the background energy that permeates "empty" space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

[Edited on 29-1-2012 by AndersHoveland]

neptunium

National Hazard

Posts: 985
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline

posted on 29-1-2012 at 13:50

the current laws and mathematical descriptions of the word are not 100% correct , they are just the best approximations and hold true for a vast majority of cases .

I`ve heard about the OPERA results ,the first estimate were arround 12 Km/s !but they are still being debated,

less interactions with regular matter wont save the muon from the space time continuum, they must follow the same path that light did to get to our detectors,

the supernovae of 1987 is 168 000 ly away a difference in speed of 7 Km/s over a distance like this would be a colosal blow to the theory of relativity ! understandably a lot of people are skeptical over these results,

dark matter and dark energy could`ve play a small role in this odd result although weak in our galactic backyard...i guess everyone can speculate ...

Morgan

International Hazard

Posts: 1660
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 29-1-2012 at 16:24

Tidbits on size and left field theories.

Graham's number
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwPVoFuWARw

Comic book writer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH7gSkuNBzc#t=14s

watson.fawkes

International Hazard

Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 30-1-2012 at 14:49

Quote: Originally posted by Vogelzang

Read this article.

The magazine these articles are from is published by Lyndon LaRouche's organization, a fact worthy of disclosure if you expect folks to take you seriously in the long term. This is as opposed to taking you seriously in the short term, where suppressing just unflattering facts may help you.

Perhaps if you are interested in promoting the debate you could also post Roger Balian's rebuttal of Allais's arguments, Allais's counter-response, and any subsequent debate on the matter by them or others.

Or, if you are merely a polemicist, you could add nothing more.

neptunium

National Hazard

Posts: 985
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline

posted on 30-1-2012 at 15:08

ouch!

Polverone

Now celebrating 21 years of madness

Thread Split
30-1-2012 at 15:11

Sedit

International Hazard

Posts: 1939
Registered: 23-11-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: Manic Expressive

posted on 30-1-2012 at 22:23

Quote: Originally posted by neptunium

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit

Since we are on an armchair basis here I have no shame in stating that there is no such thing as matter, all matter appears to be is a bending of electromagnetic radiation by energy to give the appearance of a solid object of a specific color. It has already been proven that matter and energy are interchangeable, I argue that it is energy in the form of a standing wave that causes it to push other standing waves(other matter) away from itself causing the illusion of it being a solid object.

My hypothesis goes much deeper then this but its a rough outline on how I view matter. I have done much research into standing waves and I have noticed groups of them moving though water and acting as if it where a solid object. If those waves where to small for me to see I would no doubt feel that the cluster was nothing more then a solid object.

[Edited on 26-1-2012 by Sedit]

sounds alot like string theory.

Yes in a way is shares many similaritys with string theory however I developed my line of thinking without much knowledge of string theory and my current understanding of it is still rather crude. A clean and easy to demonstration to visualize what I am trying to describe is to place a bowl of water over a vibrating plate. Try to keep the frequencys of the standing waves high by making the water shallow and use a metallic surface with some pennys or other small objects that would assist in creating wave patterns. It will amaze one how something so simple can demonstate how wave forms can behave as solid objects because they move and interact with one another as though the clusters where indeed solid material. They attract, repel, bounce off one another ect... A truely elegant demostration of a possible fundemental law of psysics and energy interaction. If Electromagnetic radiation standing waves managed to behave in the same manner as transversal standing waves on a fundemental level then it could quite possible could lead to a grand unification theory with further study of the dynamics behind the phenomenon.

Knowledge is useless to useless people...

"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story before."~Maynard James Keenan

Pulverulescent

National Hazard

Posts: 793
Registered: 31-1-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: Torn between two monikers ─ "hissingnoise" and the present incarnation!

posted on 31-1-2012 at 02:04

Quote:

. . . sounds a lot like string theory.

'More like 'strung out theory', to me! (

)

P

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"

A Einstein

Vogelzang

Banned

Posts: 662
Registered: 26-4-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 31-1-2012 at 02:47

Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes

Quote: Originally posted by Vogelzang

Read this article.

That's about the most ignorant response imaginable.

http://www.real-debt-elimination.com/real_freedom/Propaganda...

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

http://www.aulis.com/albert_einstein.htm

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/RelativityDebates.htm

http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/Science.htm

watson.fawkes

International Hazard

Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 31-1-2012 at 07:40

Quote: Originally posted by Vogelzang

That's about the most ignorant response imaginable.

Oh, you misunderstand. I was attacking the messenger, not the message. In other words, it's all about you.

Allais isn't a loon, but certainly heterodox. There's a recent paper on large-scale anisotropy of space involving small changes in the fine-structure constant. This was, as I recall, their fourth round of these results, which had been partial before. The latest advance was correlating northern and southern hemisphere observations. So I'm perfectly willing to entertain anisotropy claims. Indeed, I think it's much more likely than not that large-scale anisotropy is true.

What I wasn't familiar with was Allais's claims. And therefore I turn back to you. Quoting a LaRouche publication is a very quick way to stamp the "gullible" brand on your forehead. Further link-spamming does nothing for your credibility. Do you even understand these arguments well enough to summarize them in your own words? Or is your competence just great enough to understand that they are contrarian, and immediately latch on to them?

I have no interest in discussing anything with a link of hypertext links. Perhaps with a person with enough courage to assert a claim as their own.

Vogelzang

Banned

Posts: 662
Registered: 26-4-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 31-1-2012 at 13:54

Special Relativity is impossible to test. It requires the belief that the speed of light is constant which can't be proven with absolute accuracy since all real instruments produce some error. Also, special relativity only applies where there's no gravity or acceleration. Gravity exists everywhere in our big bang universe so that's another reason Special Relativity is impossible to test. Issac Newton, Christen Huygens and Johannes Soldner all proposed theories about light bending in a gravitational field before Einstein worked on his theory. Einstein plagiarized the math from Gerber and Hilbert. It might work, but gravity is a kind of aether density gradient not curved space. Undergraduate physics experiments prove gravity is NOT curved space. If the space was curved then every projectile would follow the same path independent of velocity, but experiments show that the faster a projectile goes in a gravitation field the straighter its path. Therefore, gravity is not curved space. Eric Baird wrote about his theory of an aether density gradient as a theory for gravity.

[Edited on 31-1-2012 by Vogelzang]

Vogelzang

Banned

Posts: 662
Registered: 26-4-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 31-1-2012 at 13:58

The Lorentz transformations were worked out by Heaviside, Voigt, Fitzgerald, Lamor, Lorentz and Poincaré before Einstein. The twin paradox proves Special Relativity is impossible. The Lorentz transformations are assymetric, ie. they occur as a function of the velocity relative to the aether not the observer.

Vogelzang

Banned

Posts: 662
Registered: 26-4-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 31-1-2012 at 14:03

Stellar aberation experiments with binary stars appear to show the earth is moving through a transmitting medium of light since the telescope tilt is the same for both stars. Supporters of Einsteinian Relativity argued the stellar aberation was due to relative motion between the earth and star, but when the experiments are done with binary stars which move at different velocities, the tilt is the same.

Vogelzang

Banned

Posts: 662
Registered: 26-4-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 31-1-2012 at 14:04

I didn't quote a LaRouche publication. The authors are not LaRouche. The first article was written by Maurice Allais and the second article was written by Laurence Hecht.

[Edited on 31-1-2012 by Vogelzang]

Vogelzang

Banned

Posts: 662
Registered: 26-4-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 31-1-2012 at 14:07

Here's another link for you.

The name "Einstein" evokes images of genius, but was Albert Einstein, in fact, a plagiarist, who copied the theories of Lorentz, Poincare, Gerber, and Hilbert?
http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/MainPage.htm

Vogelzang

Banned

Posts: 662
Registered: 26-4-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 31-1-2012 at 14:18

The aether is not at absolute rest and aether drift experiments don't measure absolute velocities.

http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t...

Sedit

International Hazard

Posts: 1939
Registered: 23-11-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: Manic Expressive

posted on 31-1-2012 at 14:31

Quote: Originally posted by Pulverulescent

Quote:

. . . sounds a lot like string theory.

'More like 'strung out theory', to me! (

)

P

Perhaps but one must speculate and hypothesis before any theory can become solid. Would you care to offer an alternative hypothesis by any chance?

It's not a hypothesis that is crazy its only when one refuses to alter there hypothesis and point of view when new evidence presents itself that makes an idea crazy. I personally think current understanding is starting to fall into this realm because it has been almost a century since Einsteins theorys where developed but we have yet to use them to form a grand unified theory. This to me suggest that somewhere along the line his theorys are fundamentally flawed and need to be revamped at there core in order to gain a greater understanding of physics. I honestly feel that the main sticking point is that the speed of light is a constant but its one of those things that will in the end be very hard to see if there is a slight variation.

I feel one day people will look back at the theory of relativity and laugh at its absurdness in the same way that we laugh at the idea of the earth being flat.

Pulverulescent

National Hazard

Posts: 793
Registered: 31-1-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: Torn between two monikers ─ "hissingnoise" and the present incarnation!

posted on 31-1-2012 at 15:26

Quote:

'More like 'strung out theory', to me! (

)

Quote:

Would you care to offer an alternative hypothesis by any chance?

Why sure, hows about 'strung up theory'? (

)

P

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"

A Einstein

watson.fawkes

International Hazard

Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 1-2-2012 at 04:43

Quote: Originally posted by Vogelzang

I didn't quote a LaRouche publication. The authors are not LaRouche. The first article was written by Maurice Allais and the second article was written by Laurence Hecht.

You are either entirely ignorant about this or entirely craven about lying about it.

The first link in Google, searching on the title, is the magazine itself. The second link states clearly that it's a LaRouche publication and talks about some of its history. The Wikipedia page on the LaRouche movement lists it as their publication. And if that wasn't enough, the home page of the site has a link titled "Science & the LaRouche Youth Movement".

While Allais was an actual scientist (he died recently), Hecht is indeed a LaRouche crony. He's a regular writer for that publication. His articles are blurbed on the LAROUCHEPAC site. He had assets seized in a judgement for securities fraud against some of the LaRouche organizations (see this link).

watson.fawkes

International Hazard

Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 1-2-2012 at 04:44

Quote: Originally posted by Vogelzang

Special Relativity is impossible to test. It requires the belief that the speed of light is constant which can't be proven with absolute accuracy since all real instruments produce some error.

I won't be discussing science with you, given your puerile understanding of the relationship between experiment and theory.

neptunium

National Hazard

Posts: 985
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline

posted on 1-2-2012 at 06:56

Quote: Originally posted by Vogelzang

CONSPIRACY THEORIST ALERT
what a bold and grossly inaccurate statement ! wise up

could we re center the debate on the origine of the universe from nothingness?

[Edited on 1-2-2012 by neptunium]

franklyn

International Hazard

Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 27-12-2015 at 21:25

The best theories employ the most adherents.

It is remarkably difficult to make a man understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
— Upton Sinclair

http://listverse.com/2015/12/27/10-alternatives-to-the-conve...

It all depends on how you see.

related thread
www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=12819#pid2620...

Techniques to Disrupt, Deviate and Seize Control of an Internet Forum In case you wonder W T F ! is going on here ?
www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-10-28/cointelpro-techniques-dilution-misdirection-and-control-internet-forum https://web.archive.org/web/20120814124000/www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/the-15-rules-of-internet-disinformation.html
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pages: 1 2 3

Sciencemadness Discussion Board » Fundamentals » Miscellaneous » Irony of borrowing from nothingness concept