Einstein's theory failed. The world is entering a new reality.

a reply to: RussianTroll

The boundary of the universe has been a logical problem for many years, because if there is a boundary, it can be broken through or bypassed. Vasily describes it this way: there is a border only on one side, on ours, if you go outside the universe, you will not be able to return - there will be neither a door nor a direction where to go.

It sounds like getting trapped in a black hole. Without an engine that gets past that gravity well, ain't getting out of that bog anytime soon. If we did have a super fast spaceship that could go to the edge of the universe, it could crash over lots of things along the way. I don't see space not existing as one of them. I have not been there and don't really know. There will still be a direction as the light of the universe gradually fades away for a while if this boundary does exist and gets breached.

For things to exist as it does, to consider the properties of time and space as infinite is reasonable. One theory a while back called the reciprocal theory was based on all matter and energies where formed by time space twisting on it's self in various ways. It did make a lot of progress, seeing everything as a function of time space has a place. The picture of how life started from a subtle ripple in this infinite fabric makes more sense than some big bang out of nowhere, maybe?

How time slows down the closer to the speed of light we get is a weird one. It is like there is some kind of boundary there. Hurts my head knowing what it is.

a reply to: kwaka
That question is not really relevant to the topic of this thread (though I see plenty of other off-topic replies here too). That's the kind of question my "ask any question about physics" thread was made for, but it reached the page limit and is closed, so I can't answer it there anymore. I think it's a mistake to think of light as one or the other, but the biggest advance in my understanding was redefining what a "particle" means to me in this context. It doesn't mean a little thing like a tiny marble, because as you say a photon has no mass. In my updated definition of how "particle" applies to light, it simply means the light is quantized into "quanta" as experiments have demonstrated, and the "quanta" are what we call "particle-like" discrete energy packets of light.

One of my physics professors used the term "wavicle" to describe light as some kind of wave-particle hybrid, but I don't think that term ever caught on very much though I see a definition page at wiktionary.org:

en.wiktionary.org...

Noun
wavicle: (quantum mechanics) A wave-particle; an entity which simultaneously has the properties of a wave and a particle.

The sea I see light travelling trough is the sea of electrons.

Light reaches us from distant galaxies billions of light years away though the vacuum of space, where there may be as few as one or two hydrogen atoms per cubic meter in deep space. I don't understand how you can see that as a "sea of electrons". If you want to discuss topics other than the wide binary stars orbits papers this thread is about, you can start another thread on those topics, but I don't want to hijack this thread any more with other topics.

a reply to: GotterDameron23

I honestly think "dark matter" and "anti matter" is the same thing as it was expected for Anti-matter to fall up and when it instead fell down.

Of course since it is a created "matter" time will tell depending on it's half life and spins etc in contact with any other particles.

The idea of using "it" for any sort of fuel is likely a wait to be seen as what was mentioned above as it may change it's centroid of rotation and become an attractor or sort of magnet of other particles in such a super super-sub-position and reverse spin all of those off of it into an accelerator at which point then it could be said to perform "useful" work... Sort of how the ion is currently harnessed which breaks speed records and is silent when colliding air particles do not invert on contact with whatever craft... The funny thing is the close orbit of going the same speed as the earth but at helicopter altitudes looking like its floating slowly and silently when it's already been out of slight once it is seen like the fatma morgana it is just a mirage hanging out there slowly drifting like a floater in the eye does.

When people say anti particle... all of the elements have one otherwise decay into another element wouldn't occur. Such as lead and gold being one of those anti particles off from being each other that could be said to be a real measure of space "time". Of all the elements those two are the only one;s that I know of being a one something off of each other... If there are more? Then my knowledge is lacking it.

When people say exotic materials it's typically a mirror of the rare earth or meteorite materials made in the lab instead of going out there to get more of them if such a vector can be determined as to it's origin of a debris field where it's orbit has decayed. Being nearly hit in the head by one of those in around 2007 was a neat experience the college advisor not really that impressed saying they fall around there all the time since the Southern hemisphere is where most of the launches occur that opens a window in the plasma field for them to come in.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
It's too soon to say which of the papers have the correct conclusions, or maybe none do, because of the variables involved and the relatively short observation times. Here is a less biased article on the topic which points out the other study coming to the opposite conclusion, to a very high confidence level, without trying to ultimately decide which is correct. We just don't know yet, but it's far less certain than your posts imply, to be sure.

(snippage of a bunch of stuff for easier reading)

Thank you.

You've hit the nail on the head here... making conclusions from incomplete data is risky and there should be an acknowledgement of this in the publications. I do salute Chae for releasing his data for study; that's the ethical way that science should be done.

I also notice that people who are not scientists are hopping on the idea without noticing that it involves acceleration and hence does not apply to every single solar system/planetary system -- and then speculating (or declaring) technology that can evolve from it. It may turn into another "Quantum-fantasy" (much as happened with quantum entanglement) where some will turn it into an explanation (for them) of various phenomena.

originally posted by: crayzeed
Again I will repeat myself and you don't need any scientist to prove it to you. GRAVITY IS NOT A WEAK FORCE! Gravity is the strongest force in the Universe. I'll make it real simple. What keeps the Moon orbiting around the Earth/ What keeps the Earth and the Moon orbiting around the sun. Moons, Planets etc. etc. Objects that weigh gazillions of tons, not one but hundreds, these are held virtually precisely in place and has done for hundreds of thousands of years. THAT'S GRAVITY. It aint weak. And it permeates the entire Universe and if one cares to extrapolate gravity is the "zero" point energy man is always searching for. Because if man could harness gravity manipulation, not negating gravity but manipulating??????????

gravity isn't a force as you describe it, its merely a measurement of the interaction between two Masses, more mass means more gravity. gravity doesn't hold stuff together, mass does.

and honestly modified gravity makes no sense and ignores the basic rule of science, the simplest answer is usually the correct answer. so having a theory where every object at every scale has different math makes no sense.

I do not like the first part of the title "Einstein's theory failed."
It never failed, and because of it, we have the technologies of our world today.

Like all theories, as we progress and discover new things, these older theories produce diminishing returns on explanations and must be modified with science that can go unscathed through the gauntlet in order to be included with it.

So --- My problem is:

The one thing that bothers me is the Higgs field, and how it gives all matter density.

Relativity tells us that it does not matter what momentums and speeds that an object is experiencing as it reflects or produces light, and that light can travel no faster or slower than the Constant in RELATION to however that object was moving before.

So, the Higgs field is everywhere in the Ether (if you will), that is also any point of space that is moving in so many combined, other directions and speeds depending on where it is in the universe and what it is near or presently in close orbit with.

How does the Higgs field know about all of these underlying vectors and speeds that it is in, in order to depart density to matter that is also in the same state of flux?

We know that the faster an object is traveling, the more mass it gains and that if it approaches the speed of light, relativity says it will become infinitely dense! How can you get a zero-point density assignment with all of that underlying movement?

An example of the kind of movement is bouncing a ball on Earth. Due to speed and rotation of where the ball bounced, when it comes back up, the place it bounced from is hundreds of miles away in a direction that is a combination of multiple orbits and vectors.... Is there any way to compute this historical combination of speeds and vectors?

Anyway it is a conundrum for me, not being an astrophysicist... as if they could presently solve that now as well.
Thanks for reading my diatribe.

originally posted by: Byrd
Thank you.

You're welcome, and thanks for your reply.

You've hit the nail on the head here... making conclusions from incomplete data is risky and there should be an acknowledgement of this in the publications. I do salute Chae for releasing his data for study; that's the ethical way that science should be done.

I also notice that people who are not scientists are hopping on the idea without noticing that it involves acceleration and hence does not apply to every single solar system/planetary system -- and then speculating (or declaring) technology that can evolve from it. It may turn into another "Quantum-fantasy" (much as happened with quantum entanglement) where some will turn it into an explanation (for them) of various phenomena.

I don't have a problem with the scientific papers contradicting each other. Eventually we may know the reasons for the contradictions and can resolve them.

But I was disturbed by how the opening post of this thread picked just one paper, while ignoring the others that came to completely different conclusions. We should consider the various papers on this topic until the contradictions in them have been resolved.

I also notice that people who are not scientists are hopping on the idea without noticing that it involves acceleration and hence does not apply to every single solar system/planetary system -- and then speculating (or declaring) technology that can evolve from it.

Do you know of even a single solar system or planetary system that doesn't involve orbits? Because you can't have an orbit without something like centripetal acceleration, so I suspect they all have acceleration. The domain of MOND theory is very small accelerations, such as those in wide binaries. In binaries where the stars are closer, the acclerations are not as small, putting it outside the domain where the MOND adjustments kick in. So it's not whether there's acceleration or not, I don't know of any planets, moons or stars that don't accelerate centripetally at least, it's the magnitude of the acceleration where MOND proponents think their theory is needed to explain small accelerations. (As Chae claims in the paper in the OP link, "The empirical acceleration relation at (less then about) 10^−9 m/s² systematically deviates from the Newtonian expectation.")

originally posted by: charlyv
We know that the faster an object is traveling, the more mass it gains and that if it approaches the speed of light, relativity says it will become infinitely dense! How can you get a zero-point density assignment with all of that underlying movement?

Even though you may have been taught "relativistic mass" in school, my recommendation is to "unlearn it". Einstein didn't agree with that concept, and Don Lincoln says even though he may have been guilty of teaching that idea, it's really not correct. He mentions there is a small minority of people who still support the idea, but I think it has really lost favor, and the theory is after all Eistein's theory, so why would you want to disagree with Einstein on this?

Is relativistic mass real?

0:37
So, let’s talk about that last one- the idea that you can’t go faster than the speed of light.
This is a well-demonstrated fact. So why is it true?

If you ask a well-educated scientific layperson, they will tell you that it’s because the mass of an object increases as the velocity increases. In fact, you’ll hear this said by people with physics degrees. There’s only one thing.

It’s just not true.

Now I realize that me saying that is going to confuse a lot of you.

originally posted by: FaeDedAgain
where is phage?wonder what he can add to this

calling mr phage
mr phage..
hello?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Phage graces us with his presence very rarely these days.

where is phage?wonder what he can add to this

calling mr phage
mr phage..
hello?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ARM19688
Maybe planetary physics is slightly different to solar system physics and solar system physics isn’t quite galaxy physics. Slight differences due to scale of something I have no idea about.

The simplest answer for dark matter is that it does not exist and is only a band aid for the equations that don’t quite work.

We get locked in to dogma and Einstein is treated with religious fervour, probably because it is too daunting to consider he was wrong about some things. I dunno, I find that quite exciting.

No they would all have to be the same or you do not have a valid theory. As far as Einstein we know his equations are wrong we see them breakdown in a black hole. The problem is we don't know whats wrong because it works 99.9 percent of the time. But we do know it's not correct and still seeking either a modification or a completely new understanding of gravity.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
It's too soon to say which of the papers have the correct conclusions, or maybe none do, because of the variables involved and the relatively short observation times. Here is a less biased article on the topic which points out the other study coming to the opposite conclusion, to a very high confidence level, without trying to ultimately decide which is correct. We just don't know yet, but it's far less certain than your posts imply, to be sure.

(snippage of a bunch of stuff for easier reading)

Thank you.

You've hit the nail on the head here... making conclusions from incomplete data is risky and there should be an acknowledgement of this in the publications. I do salute Chae for releasing his data for study; that's the ethical way that science should be done.

I also notice that people who are not scientists are hopping on the idea without noticing that it involves acceleration and hence does not apply to every single solar system/planetary system -- and then speculating (or declaring) technology that can evolve from it. It may turn into another "Quantum-fantasy" (much as happened with quantum entanglement) where some will turn it into an explanation (for them) of various phenomena.

Yes it involves acceleration we know that if we modify Einstines equation by I think it was 1 ten thousands of a g it matches galaxy observations. Problem is we can't figure our why it wouldn't apply every where because it should.

MOND fails to explain it unless we can figure out why there is inconsistencies though I am beginning to believe that dark matter is just wrong I'm thinking we don't understand the energy involved in the universe and not taking its effects into consideration. And I doubt we will solve it until we get the abilities to travel the galaxy and get accurate readings.

i am confused...
how is it you responded yo my post about phage.....10 MINUTES BEFORE I EVER POSTED IT??

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Byrd
Thank you.

You're welcome, and thanks for your reply.

You've hit the nail on the head here... making conclusions from incomplete data is risky and there should be an acknowledgement of this in the publications. I do salute Chae for releasing his data for study; that's the ethical way that science should be done.

I also notice that people who are not scientists are hopping on the idea without noticing that it involves acceleration and hence does not apply to every single solar system/planetary system -- and then speculating (or declaring) technology that can evolve from it. It may turn into another "Quantum-fantasy" (much as happened with quantum entanglement) where some will turn it into an explanation (for them) of various phenomena.

I don't have a problem with the scientific papers contradicting each other. Eventually we may know the reasons for the contradictions and can resolve them.

But I was disturbed by how the opening post of this thread picked just one paper, while ignoring the others that came to completely different conclusions. We should consider the various papers on this topic until the contradictions in them have been resolved.

I also notice that people who are not scientists are hopping on the idea without noticing that it involves acceleration and hence does not apply to every single solar system/planetary system -- and then speculating (or declaring) technology that can evolve from it.

Do you know of even a single solar system or planetary system that doesn't involve orbits? Because you can't have an orbit without something like centripetal acceleration, so I suspect they all have acceleration. The domain of MOND theory is very small accelerations, such as those in wide binaries. In binaries where the stars are closer, the acclerations are not as small, putting it outside the domain where the MOND adjustments kick in. So it's not whether there's acceleration or not, I don't know of any planets, moons or stars that don't accelerate centripetally at least, it's the magnitude of the acceleration where MOND proponents think their theory is needed to explain small accelerations. (As Chae claims in the paper in the OP link, "The empirical acceleration relation at (less then about) 10^−9 m/s² systematically deviates from the Newtonian expectation.")

originally posted by: charlyv
We know that the faster an object is traveling, the more mass it gains and that if it approaches the speed of light, relativity says it will become infinitely dense! How can you get a zero-point density assignment with all of that underlying movement?

Even though you may have been taught "relativistic mass" in school, my recommendation is to "unlearn it". Einstein didn't agree with that concept, and Don Lincoln says even though he may have been guilty of teaching that idea, it's really not correct. He mentions there is a small minority of people who still support the idea, but I think it has really lost favor, and the theory is after all Eistein's theory, so why would you want to disagree with Einstein on this?

Is relativistic mass real?

0:37
So, let’s talk about that last one- the idea that you can’t go faster than the speed of light.
This is a well-demonstrated fact. So why is it true?

If you ask a well-educated scientific layperson, they will tell you that it’s because the mass of an object increases as the velocity increases. In fact, you’ll hear this said by people with physics degrees. There’s only one thing.

It’s just not true.

Now I realize that me saying that is going to confuse a lot of you.

originally posted by: FaeDedAgain
where is phage?wonder what he can add to this

calling mr phage
mr phage..
hello?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Phage graces us with his presence very rarely these days.

originally posted by: FaeDedAgain
i am confused...
how is it you responded yo my post about phage.....10 MINUTES BEFORE I EVER POSTED IT??

Even though this thread claims that Einstein's theory failed (which, by the way, has not been proven, despite the over-exuberant claims in the opening posts), there is a famous quote from Einstein that might aply here:

www.brainyquote.com...

"The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
-Albert Einstein

However I'm not sure that quote really applies to the topic of the following thread which seems like some kind of time warp or bug in the time matrix, since ATS gives a message about 4 hours to edit a post but ability to edit disappears in half that time:

4 Hours to edit a post? Are those dog hours?
Actually it's a coding error, and a clue to answer your question. Good catch though, I was wondering if you would notice!

The reason I did that, is it was sort of an off-topic reply, and I don't like to make a post containing exclusively an off-topic reply. If the off-topic reply is tacked on to an on-topic reply, that somehow seems more acceptable to me.

YEAH I FIGURED it was edit related when i saw the one min difference from your edit to my post....or was it my edit to yours ....
or both..a reply to: FaeDedAgain

i do not understand what you are saying about sabbath...


but a wise old man told me when i was a wee small lad....

he took a knee....and in a calm tone...and spoke

"listen to black sabbath"

if you can tell from my back round in profile...i took his advice from then on to now and am thankful ...

originally posted by: crowf00t
a reply to: FaeDedAgain

That's a pretty good reason for Black Sabbath to have gotten back together.

a reply to: namehere
You're wrong. Mass does not create gravity. You can have any 2 or multiple masses, however large, will not cause gravity. Now, spinning masses are a different kettle of fish. A spinning mass does affect create gravity. If you would care to see the experiments of spinning heavy wheels that negates their mass therefore alter the force of gravity on them ie makes the lighter.
Example:- The moon is approx a quarter the size of Earth, gravity keeps the moon in orbit around the Earth, therefore gravity exists in the space between Earth and Moon (scientific fact, simple heh) now place an object half way between them and it would not be affected by either gravity. Gravity IS a force that's "manufactured" by spinning masses just like steam (a force) is "made" by boiling water, ie, water is not the force but the force comes from the water. As I said before the power within gravity we cannot make, but to manipulate that that is already there and it permeates the cosmos IS the Zero point energy.

a reply to: FaeDedAgain

The solo artist name as the headliner like oh no its not the beetles any more it's all of them as individual names oh on it's not No Doubt anymore its Gwen Oh no it's not Samhain any more it's Danzig... Oh no it's not Black Sabbath anymore its Ozzy...

You get the idea,



on another note it may be relativity but when I look at "Albert Einstein" I see an Old English sheep dog not a human.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: namehere
You're wrong. Mass does not create gravity. You can have any 2 or multiple masses, however large, will not cause gravity. Now, spinning masses are a different kettle of fish. A spinning mass does affect create gravity. If you would care to see the experiments of spinning heavy wheels that negates their mass therefore alter the force of gravity on them ie makes the lighter.
Example:- The moon is approx a quarter the size of Earth, gravity keeps the moon in orbit around the Earth, therefore gravity exists in the space between Earth and Moon (scientific fact, simple heh) now place an object half way between them and it would not be affected by either gravity. Gravity IS a force that's "manufactured" by spinning masses just like steam (a force) is "made" by boiling water, ie, water is not the force but the force comes from the water. As I said before the power within gravity we cannot make, but to manipulate that that is already there and it permeates the cosmos IS the Zero point energy.

Your right and wrong first your right mass does not create gravity. Mass distorts spacetime. Now it gets a bit complicated here but the distortion of space time causes an object to seek the path of least resistance aka a geodesic. Some claim this is do to the warping of time that we get gravity. However spacetime was never meant to be separated it is just one thing not space and time but both an increase in onw affects the other.

Any object near mass space time geodesic arr warped towards center of mass. An object will always follow its geodesic unless force is applied think of it as path of least resistance. So in effect there is no gravity as a force it is simply a symptom of warping spacetime.

Now before you ask no we don't know why mass distorts spacetime we just know it does through experiments

a reply to: dragonridr

Now before you ask no we don't know why mass distorts spacetime we just know it does through experiments

When one speeds through space time slows down
When one approaches mass time slows down.

Doesn't it make sense that mass itself is warped spacetime? The increased density of spacetime in both cases causing time to slow down.

originally posted by: watcheroo
a reply to: dragonridr

Now before you ask no we don't know why mass distorts spacetime we just know it does through experiments

When one speeds through space time slows down
When one approaches mass time slows down.

Doesn't it make sense that mass itself is warped spacetime? The increased density of spacetime in both cases causing time to slow down.

scientists use terms very carefully and they often have specific meaning. When you approach a mass like the moon for example, the spacetime around the moon has such little mass that you aren't far off if you say the density is about zero (the moon's "atmosphere" is a better vacuum than the best vacuum we can make on Earth). So it really doesn't make any sense to talk about the increased density of spacetime as you get closer to a mass like the moon. The spacetime is "warped" more closer to the moon than far away, but that's not related to density, defined as mass per unit volume, which doesn't increase significantly as you get closer to the moon.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Does gravity cause time dilation or does time dilation cause gravity? If time dilation causes gravity then time dilation between a clock on the moon and a clock in moons orbit could not exist if the density (for lack of better word) of space-time was zero. I am pushing I guess my layman thoughts of quantum mechanics onto space-time. That empty space-time is full of fluctuations. With every part entangled with every other part. Perhaps seeing everything existing as distinct objects is a limitation of our mind rather than being the absolute reality.