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.
They then go on to say that's it's not likely to be a black hole, so the relativistic effects seen before likely don't apply to this new observation.
Originally posted by die_another_day
There are dozens of theories for traveling faster than light.
However, almost every time someone claims that they have done it, it ends up being inconclusive.
Originally posted by daniel_g
reply to post by eightfold
No eightfold, the article clearly explains why its apparent speed is ftl. These are expected illusions that we get from something traveling close to light speed, so that's that.
What scientists can't figure out is what is causing them. If anyone is putting words in that article, is perhaps yourself:
They then go on to say that's it's not likely to be a black hole, so the relativistic effects seen before likely don't apply to this new observation.
Yup, the article doesn't say anything like that.
Hey, at least you did point out my biggest problem, that is attitude.
Originally posted by the.lights
Fascinating! When do we get to here more about this? Anyone know?
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Originally posted by the.lights
Fascinating! When do we get to here more about this? Anyone know?
In roughly 4 million years when humans boldly go there.
Or never, if we become extinct first.
But something like this you seriously need more detailed instrument readings. This event may be over by the time we develop those capabilities. That's why I said Never...
Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL
Wow very intresting. They say the objects moving four times the speed of light..............I thought nothing could travel faster than the speed of light
Originally posted by eightfold
No it doesn't, it offers a plausible possibility based on what's been observed before.
Apparent FTL movement has only been seen in relativistic jets ejected from accretion disks around massive black hole systems.
They then go on to say that's it's not likely to be a black hole, so the relativistic effects seen before likely don't apply to this new observation.
Yup, the article doesn't say anything like that.
Well it does... it says it's not likely to be a black hole, so, logically, the apparent FTL speed can't be explained.
Originally posted by Korg Trinity
Originally posted by MysterE
Yet it does seem to be moving – and fast: its apparent sideways velocity is four times the speed of light
But what could this be?
That is a perfect example of how the Standard model is totally wrong.
In the standard model as is known by many no matter could travel faster than the speed of light, but it is possible for radio waves to travel faster than light.
Korg.
The group velocity of a wave (e.g. a light beam) may also exceed c in some circumstances. In such cases, which typically at the same time involve rapid attenuation of the intensity, the maximum of the envelope of a pulse may travel with a velocity above c. However, even this situation does not imply the propagation of signals with a velocity above c, even though one may be tempted to associate pulse maxima with signals.
Originally posted by SLAYER69
OK S & F
Great find, Now...
The signal started when the nearby explosion took place now it is constant and traveling away from said explosion at great speed and is broadcasting it's position.