Witnesses For Ufo Congressional Hearing

[imnotanaddict]

evilbagpuss

Be sure.. in time Einsteins paradigm will be blown to pieces too. Its inevitable. Certain aspects of Einsteins theories of the Universe were shown to be incorrect. I cant remember the exact details but I think it was something to do with the rate at which the Universe is expanding. I cant recall if it was meant to be constant or variable in Einsteins paradigm but nevertheless he is gradually being proved wrong in certain areas, or more accurately his theory is being refined.

You might be interested in this.
http://www.discover.com/apr_03/featspeed.html

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob
neither have you, it must be said

ok, say you're right, can you explain for stupid people like myself exactly the connection between newton's third and e=mc2

OK. Newtons 3rd stated that

"for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"

Which if you ignore the loss of energy through friction is (or was) basically true.

Einsteins theory says that

Energy = Mass x speed of light squared

That is... when the reaction takes place the inherent energy in the matter is converted to a new amount of energy multiplied by the speed of light squared.

So if your multiplying the original energy by the speed of light squared your not going to get an "equal amount" of energy back out are you?

Another way to put it would be....

E = M (newton)
E = MC2 (Einstein)

They cannot both be true can they? Think about an atom bomb how can Newtons 3rd apply to that reaction? It cant.

Dont take my word for it though, read a few papers because I can tell you wont believe me till you read it from some Uni professor.

The point Im making is that our current paradigm forbids faster than light travel and instead tries to get round the problem by creating wormholes (Stephen Hawking talks about his possibility).

However Einsteins paradigm, like Newtons is susceptible to small gradual refinements and/or massive paradigm shifts which could blow it away. You seem to be saying that Einstein has got it perfect and our idea of physics will never change.

What Im saying is that by looking back at history this is highly unlikely. So faster than light travel might be possible but like Newton back in the old days we just havent worked out how to break the old rules.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 14:23
Dont take my word for it though, read a few papers because I can tell you wont believe me till you read it from some Uni professor.

that's funny cos i believed my uni proferrsor when he said newton's third was true...

[evilbagpuss]

Here are links all from UK universities verifying what I have told you. Those in pdf form are from googles cache.

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:jULoI...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://homepages.ed.ac.uk/ajbird/teaching/...basic_ideas.htm

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:CB4RI...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cachefrbc...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

In the interests of world peace I'm politely asking you to email/talk to your professor and ask him about this.

I suspect that when he said its true he meant for the vast majority of things not related to nuclear power so as not to complicate the issue during teaching. But I am fairly sure that in the purest sense Newton was proved wrong by Einstein because as you can see Newtons theory simply cannot co-exist with Einsteins.

I think the misunderstanding is that in practice nuclear power is a seperate issue but in a technical/purist sense it is all part of the same thing.

I may be wrong but I'm 99.999% sure I'm right. So in the meantime I'll defer to you professor to sort it out once and for all.

[SodiumChloride]

Originally posted by imnotanaddict@17 August 2003 - 06:22
You might be interested in this.
http://www.discover.com/apr_03/featspeed.html

That was a very interesting read! Towards the end it reminded me of a dripping faucet on a cosmic lake. Something like a big bang, then expansion, then a big bang, then expansion, et cetera.

The universe expands like a ripple in a lake from a drop of water, then another drop, another, and another, forever, as the waves of galaxies from previous bangs continue to expand like ripples. B)

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 13:23

So if your multiplying the original energy by the speed of light squared your not going to get an "equal amount" of energy back out are you?

Another way to put it would be....

E = M (newton)
E = MC2 (Einstein)

Of course you are getting the same amount of energy!!!

E=Energy, M=Mass, what E=MC2 is saying is that there is that amount of energy locked up in matter..

You can't just invent energy out of thin air, it just doesn't work like that, unless you're Stephen Hawking, who is expecting dozens of "mini-black holes" to pop up any time now.


From what I could make out, Einsteins theories were an extension of Newtons laws, they did not (as such) contradict them.

Anyway, how this relates to extraterrestrials I don't know. I just hoped they're advanced enough to explain "light" to me, cos no-one on earth can seem to be able to!

"So teacher, is light a wave or a particle?"

"It's a particle, acting in a wave-like manner"..

PAH! What a load of bollocks.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by barbarossa@18 August 2003 - 11:12
Anyway, how this relates to extraterrestrials I don't know. I just hoped they're advanced enough to explain "light" to me, cos no-one on earth can seem to be able to!

"So teacher, is light a wave or a particle?"

"It's a particle, acting in a wave-like manner"..

PAH! What a load of bollocks.

light is composed of an electric field and a magnetic field

as for it being either a wave or a particle, you're right in that it can be thought of as both

as the theory of wave-particle duality suggests

p.s. i'm still unsure how e-mc2 contradicts newton's third law...

edit: the energy calculated in the equation "e = mc2" is the relativistic energy...

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob+18 August 2003 - 10:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3rd gen noob @ 18 August 2003 - 10:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-barbarossa@18 August 2003 - 11:12
Anyway, how this relates to extraterrestrials I don't know. I just hoped they're advanced enough to explain "light" to me, cos no-one on earth can seem to be able to!

"So teacher, is light a wave or a particle?"

"It's a particle, acting in a wave-like manner"..

PAH! What a load of bollocks.

light is composed of an electric field and a magnetic field

as for it being either a wave or a particle, you're right in that it can be thought of as both

as the theory of wave-particle duality suggests

p.s. i'm still unsure how e-mc2 contradicts newton's third law...

edit: the energy calculated in the equation "e = mc2" is the relativistic energy... [/b][/quote]
Nope, still don't get it, and now you've brought in magnets and electrics, that's just making it worse...

[lynx]

Originally posted by imnotanaddict@17 August 2003 - 14:22
You might be interested in this.
http://www.discover.com/apr_03/featspeed.html

I can see a major flaw in their VSL theory.

As everyone keeps pointing out there&#39;s that little equation E=mc2. So if the speed of light was much higher and then dropped to the levels we observe now, then energy levels must also have been much higher. Where did that energy go to ?

Fortunately, I have a solution too. How can we keep the speed of light constant, and consequently the energy equation balanced, but at the same time make it possible for electromagnetic and gravitational effects to cross the proto universe ? Well if the distance is the same and the speed is the same, there is only one thing left that we can change, and that is time.

So how do we change the rate at which time passes ? This is already well documented in black hole theory, observers outside the black hole will see an item falling into the black hole appear to &#39;wink out of existence&#39;, but for the item falling in, time seems to get slower and eventually almost stand still. It will reach the centre of the black hole after an infinitely long period of time. The cause of these effects is gravity - as per Einstein&#39;s theory of relativity.

In the young universe, there was so much matter compressed into such a small space that gravity must have been immense, and we don&#39;t need to go back as far as the universe being the size of a pin head (which I believe to be utter nonsense) for this to be the case. The consequence of this immense gravity would be a change in time itself just as when an object approaches a black hole.

It would be possible for the universe to remain in this near black hole condition almost indefinitely, but as the universe slowly expanded gravitational fields would diminish and time would gradually become more like we know it. To an observer from our position it would appear to have been an almost instantaneous event and the change would seem like some sort of explosion - the big bang.

Edit: the big bang theory also appears to need an early period of rapid inflation which slows down later - the changing nature of time means that there was longer for a constant rate of inflation to have occured, but again to us as observers this time is compressed to the initial inflation would appear to be much higher as required.

[3rd gen noob]

great post, lynx

this is the first post to make sense to me in the whole thread pretty much...