Nothing whatsoever wrong with questioning established scientific dogma when conflicting evidence from a credible source requires resolution. It helps if your comprehension of the field allows you to form a coherent opinion...babbling on while demonstrating a complete ignorance of the subject generally disqualifies one as a critic. It is always reasonable to look hardest for errors in the conflicting evidence when the theory in question has long stood the test of time against many trials.
Serious physicists question Einstein on a daily basis; that is their job! However, unlike the crackpots, they realise that any new theory has to include almost all of the old theory as a limiting case. This is because the old theory (SR) has been thoroughly tested by experiment and is consistent with other accepted ideas such as Maxwell's equations.7n7is said:
Simply saying "I don't like/don't understand SR so therefore it must be wrong" is not a reliable way to the truth.
Now that physicists have to accept that Einstein was wrong they are all crackpots now. The term physics will be replaced by crackpotology. Students will now get degrees in crackpotology at universities all around the world. This is how they will pay for the sins they have committed with relativity.
Einstein was not wrong, it is just that his view, and scope -- was limited. Nothing more.
What will be found is that the general aspects of relativity will hold.
Ie the mass aggregate generalizations will hold but the quantum will be different, as it is a dimensional integrative on the individual quanta level.
Each atomic structure or component has a transition point. For example, each metal is quantum in action/reaction until a certain number of the given atoms are joined together. Then they begin to exhibit metallic lattice considerations. Alchemy is about nano level actions or quantum interactions, which is why it is so misunderstood, until it is looked at as the thing that it is - nano chemistry.
In effect, time is different at the quantum level than it is at the mass interactive level. Thus the recent theory that time is an after effect, a statistical mean/average. That is very revealing and spot on, IMO.
Read up on the experiments of Nikolai Kozyrev.
What will be found is that the general aspects of relativity will hold.
Ie the mass aggregate generalizations will hold but the quantum will be different, as it is a dimensional integrative on the individual quanta level.
Each atomic structure or component has a transition point. For example, each metal is quantum in action/reaction until a certain number of the given atoms are joined together. Then they begin to exhibit metallic lattice considerations. Alchemy is about nano level actions or quantum interactions, which is why it is so misunderstood, until it is looked at as the thing that it is - nano chemistry.
In effect, time is different at the quantum level than it is at the mass interactive level. Thus the recent theory that time is an after effect, a statistical mean/average. That is very revealing and spot on, IMO.
Read up on the experiments of Nikolai Kozyrev.
Are not our measurements tied to delta? does that not mean vector integrative?
Thus as components go....dimensionally indicative?
Neutrinos and light, same speed... So sais empty space
between us and da' supernova.
One might conclude that if light could be shot through
Earth by the same path, should arrive the same time.
Lets work that assumption instead.
Mass warps space and time. We only measure light in a
near vacuum, as it tends to interact with mass in other
ways. Doesn't mean the neutrino is now magically faster.
It took 3 hours for light to work its way out of that nova,
due to bouncing and whatever... Might have completely
masked that a massive space shortcut affects light the
same way?
Redshift light out the galaxy cluster doesn't show any
of that on a macroscopic level, maybe its a quantum
thing, you gotta pass closer to the mass to feel it?
----
On a completely diffferent note, to move through time:
Doesn't relativity mean that something else has to be
moving the other way for us to make such a reference?
between us and da' supernova.
One might conclude that if light could be shot through
Earth by the same path, should arrive the same time.
Lets work that assumption instead.
Mass warps space and time. We only measure light in a
near vacuum, as it tends to interact with mass in other
ways. Doesn't mean the neutrino is now magically faster.
It took 3 hours for light to work its way out of that nova,
due to bouncing and whatever... Might have completely
masked that a massive space shortcut affects light the
same way?
Redshift light out the galaxy cluster doesn't show any
of that on a macroscopic level, maybe its a quantum
thing, you gotta pass closer to the mass to feel it?
----
On a completely diffferent note, to move through time:
Doesn't relativity mean that something else has to be
moving the other way for us to make such a reference?
Last edited:
I asked a physicist about this yesterday and he said that even platinum has a vapor pressure and evaporates, also atoms of platinum have been found on whatever is used to handle them. With careful analysis of these measurements the loss can be mostly accounted for. He then got off on the meaning of mass and I was lost.
He also found all this exciting noting that the speed of propagation of electromagnetic radiation which includes light has not changed nor are all the experimental verifications of relativity invalidated. This is just a door to more understanding.
There was a piece in New Scientist which suggests that this neutrino data could be the first sign of extra dimensions. They got there quicker by taking a short cut. I guess it will be a few months/years before we can be sure there is even an effect to be explained. Meanwhile the journalists and crackpots will be shouting that Einstein was wrong, as though they have suddenly developed a critical understanding of graduate-level physics.
Scott, googled a link, This Kilogram Has A Weight-Loss Problem : NPR, but I remember initially having read about it in Nature in a more comprehensive fashion, about a decade ago.
The interesting thing is that the traveling kilo's grew heavier, or in other words, that the stationary one in Paris got lighter, but that it was not a random phenomena. One would have expected some kind of Bell curve centred around the Paris original if scratches, bumps, evaporation of gas absorbtion had played a role.
The meaning of mass is most likely as difficult to figure out as the meaning of life. That's one of the reasons they built CERN, and we all know what came of it.
vac
That's the thing about physicists. If they want to do something but it hasn't been invented, they invent it so they can then do it.
In the case of HTML it then got completely misunderstood by other people brought up on the WYSIWYG model who favour appearance over structure, so instead of being a simple way to exchange structured information in a platform-neutral way it has now got very bloated.
In the case of HTML it then got completely misunderstood by other people brought up on the WYSIWYG model who favour appearance over structure, so instead of being a simple way to exchange structured information in a platform-neutral way it has now got very bloated.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.