question is: are we sticking with Einstein?

None of us are safe from neutrinos any more . . .

 

I didn't get it from anywhere, I was just making an observation about a popular misunderstanding of physics. And of course it's physics. I'm talking about space, time and motion. What would that be if not physics?

Did it occur to you that if you thought someone was saying that time is not a dimension or not a space-time dimension or was saying that you don't need time to describe dynamics, that this was so absurd and incoherent that maybe you were misunderstanding what the person was saying?

In fact, that's a pretty good rule for internet conversations in general. If your first impression of a comment is that it is saying something absurd, maybe you should take a few minutes to re-read and see if he is really saying something more subtle before you dash off a high-handed reply full of obvious points that no one has disputed.

 

Just started Godel's paper and the first thing I notice/remember is that his estimation that the universe is rotating is incorrect. As it turns out there is no evidence to suggest the universe is doing anything other than expanding. Anyway thanks ( someone ) for the link, I think I'll dig into it for my evening reading.

cheers
B

 

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...perluminal-neutrinos-would-wimp-out-en-route/

The above link seems to debunk the timejump. Time = Distance/Velocity. Cannot be negative.

 

I'm working a link provided earlier, but I'll try to get to that one when I get a chance. Deal is there is just so much time I've got to read all the great links I find here on the forum. My first inclination would be to note that I still sit in on classes up at CU from time to time and from what I gather Godel's theory of causality has never been successfully refuted, IE time is irrelevant in a complex orbital system where two bodies orbits cross and involving at least one body moving at light speed, several researchers have proven at least his math even if not being able to make any observational evidences. Although there are some apparently non doppler red shift stellar objects there are also some pretty bizarre galactic filaments connecting objects of wildly varying red shifts. Which could represent systems where Godel's model applies. Maybe. If time is a variable then the red shift question is not so hard to answer. Or at least it becomes one more possibility. Ok gotta go

cheers
B

 

There will alwasy be a misunderstanding of physics, even Eisntein got it wrong instigating this thread.

 

Here's an interesting article on how "we" may possibly work on a quantum level.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...us.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg21128321.500
Makes sense to me, or at least seems quite logical.
Now, if a new unified theory could just connect faster than light neutrinos with the reptile level thinking of ever more rustic and pandering politicians, we'd be getting somewhere.
Otherwise, the ever-increasing stupid class (low-information) will soon remind us about who burned the Alexandria libraries and all this inquiry will be quaint and finished.
This forum is full of thinkers and I am grateful to participate.

 

Hey, they read my post on this thread!

(from Scientific American article)

"Some physicists have suggested that neutrinos could be finding shortcuts in spacetime–for example, by moving in extra dimensions of space–that would allow them to get there faster while still respecting the speed limit. Such a possibility may not be ruled out by neutrinos’ Cherenkov radiation, but may begin to look increasingly contrived."

I still find it interesting that this was a terrestrial experiment that measured "c" in a region with moderately bent space/time. There could be a momentum factor that allowed the neutrinos to take a more direct route, rather than following the curve.

Experimentally, the way to see if my theory is true would be to shoot the beam for a longer distance (around more of the curve) to see what happens. Then... shoot it for a shorter distance around the curve. Now perform the experiment between the Moon and Earth or between orbiting stations. Look for patterns in all the new data.

If the data turns out to be real, this is still my #1 theory.

 

interesting idea, I kinda liked the energy density angle
I've not had a chance to read up on your link yet. But looking forward to it.

'agreed
great thread
cheers all
B

 

Dave,

I don't see much romance in it personally, but as a 1905 fiction, it is cherished none the less with such works as The Life of Reason, A Dweller on Two Planets, and Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality. Each has stimulated scrutiny for more than a hundred years. If its not to your taste, fine; but it has been to the taste of a lot of people for a long while and you can't just wave your hand and make it go away. Its ingrained.

 

Dave,

It is no more just a notation than the invention of calculus is just a notation, and why shouldn't one go all poetic and etc. One should be free to seek one's truths where they like. Why are you trying separate two groups which are each trying to unify human understanding? Those notations are just the path of least resistance, not the point of the quest.

 

Dave,

If you are working in a solution space of Einstein's field equations, that is precisely what you can do. It is the entire point. The laws of physics all hold up if the appropriate four-dimensional transformation operators are used. Any event may be processed through the transforms and come out with energy, momentum, chirality preserved. (I think chirality is preserved)

 

If you want to reply individually to multiple parts of a comment, you can insert your own QUOTE to start a quote and /QUOTE to end one. Put the words in square brackets.

 

My Granadad died before they went to the moon ,he would laugh at the nonsence of the thought of it.

I --now nearly his age feel the same about twisting time and crossing space by -!!!bending space,---Im sorry but Im an engineer I can hammer nails and bend steel n stuff, I dont understand how this can be done and how the hell you work it out with numbers, this just frustrates me more.

For an ant to walk from Uk the USA would be the same as me travelling to mars, travell is a phyisicall move ment of my body(mass ) to some where else I cant bend the Atlantic or the distance to mars. I dont get it.

 

Frosty-- I too am an engineer(electronic)(past) involving electromagnetic wave travel which includes alot of the theory of what this thread is all about but i never lose touch of what it is, a THEORY and until proven by physical means thats what it will remain. In my case the theory works to satisfy my limited brain which has more concern for earthly things-- as thats where i'll be spending eternity until I eventually become cosmic dust.