It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Photons are massless. Why is c the only speed they can travel in a vacuum?
originally posted by: playswithmachines
a reply to: Arbitrageur
So if gravitons exist, and are indeed massless,why do peeps think they are limited to C ?
They never claimed it was zero in one arm but yes essentially they are claiming the response in the two different arms is slightly different. Everyone admits the responses are tiny.
Yes, a gravity wave if small enough would pass through only 1 detector, but again it will show a very small response for the reasons i stated.
So what you might have is detector 1 zero response, detector 2 a tiny response.
The speed of gravity has been indirectly measured in another paper as consistent with the speed of light, so since it's been measured it's not an assumption. They weren't able to measure the speed of gravity as precisely as we can measure the speed of light but what they could say is that if the speed of gravity is different, it's not by a lot (no more than 20% faster or slower).
Also they are assuming that these gravity waves are travelling at C so those black holes must have collided millions of years ago, but it could have been much later if the waves are superluminal.....
Since c is the conversion factor between space and time in relativity and many other experiments are consistent with relativity, it's not much of a leap to think that not only is the speed of gravity within 20% of the speed of light but it is probably the same.
the experiment measures the numerical value of c g as a test of the Lorentz invariance of the Einstein equations, and is an indirect measurement of the speed of propagation of gravity...The measured retarded deflection, as expressed by the parameter δ, is in agreement with GR to 20% accuracy
How do you know he correctly identified the ablation of the moon? What reliable lunar ablation data are you using to confirm this?
The rock method is easier & works extremely well, Brown measured changes on a daily, weekly, monthly & yearly basis, he correctly identified the ablation of the moon in his recordings.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: playswithmachines
It's just a bit absurd to say they're "private videos" when they're on YouTube and have been for several years. That would make them the opposite of private.
originally posted by: EasyPleaseMe
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: playswithmachines
It's just a bit absurd to say they're "private videos" when they're on YouTube and have been for several years. That would make them the opposite of private.
If you're going to call someone out at least check your facts first. Then you don't have to get all ad hom to cover your embarrasment...
originally posted by: TerryDon79
originally posted by: EasyPleaseMe
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: playswithmachines
It's just a bit absurd to say they're "private videos" when they're on YouTube and have been for several years. That would make them the opposite of private.
If you're going to call someone out at least check your facts first. Then you don't have to get all ad hom to cover your embarrasment...
Not sure which thread you're reading, but it's certainly can't be this one as I never used any ad homs. Also, I don't feel embarrassed in the slightest for what I said.
originally posted by: playswithmachines
a reply to: ttobban
Remember what Tesla said; vibration is everything!
Keep an open mind, and stay on the path, dude.
Terrestrial phenomena which I have noted conclusively show that there is no Heaviside layer, or if it exists, it is of no effect.
The Hertz wave theory of wireless transmission may be kept up for a while, but I do not hesitate to say that in a short time it will be recognized as one of the most remarkable and inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind which has ever been recorded in history.
originally posted by: EasyPleaseMe
originally posted by: TerryDon79
originally posted by: EasyPleaseMe
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: playswithmachines
It's just a bit absurd to say they're "private videos" when they're on YouTube and have been for several years. That would make them the opposite of private.
If you're going to call someone out at least check your facts first. Then you don't have to get all ad hom to cover your embarrasment...
Not sure which thread you're reading, but it's certainly can't be this one as I never used any ad homs. Also, I don't feel embarrassed in the slightest for what I said.
I didn't say you did. And I suppose if your aren't embarrassed about being wrong then you won't.
Then you don't have to get all ad hom to cover your embarrasment...