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.
Originally posted by sirnex
LMFAO... says the guy who's been here a total of four months.
Your too funny!
Yes, let's ignore the whole Quasar issue and claim "time dilation" still exists.
Better yet, get your lips off Einsteins ass, it's a nearly 100 year old physics model that's being proven wrong with such research.
Too be honest, I've never heard of any of those. Like I said, quick easy simple google search will enlighten the pants off ya.
Originally posted by sirnex
Just wanted to point out again that 28 year study on 900 quasars disproving time dilation.
In the mean time, can you point me to any research papers showing a fundamental unit of time that has been measured?
It's interesting, I'll give you that. I don't buy Hawking's black hole argument either. The issue with quasars, of course, is that they're going to find we're in a Machian universe instead of a deSitter universe, otherwise Mach drives wouldn't work so well.
All 'fundamental units' are defined pretty much the same way - someone picks a value you can reproduce accurately in a lab and calls that the defining characteristic of the unit.
As such, no one "measures" a fundamental unit, other than to make a calibration standard.
Originally posted by sirnex
Quasar observations are causing quiet a lot of problems with the current standard model. They show no signs of time dilation, redshift doesn't match up with brightness as it should, then there is the whole quasars being connected by bridges of matter to a host galaxy but the current dismissive argument is that every single one is just a chance coincidental alignment.
I find it more than just interesting. They list only three possibilities...
Here is that article on Muons link
Here is an article with Roger Penrose saying current physics is wrong.
I'm kicking myself in the ass because I can't remember that guy's name nor can I find the article. I've never heard of those other people you mentioned though and none of the names sound remotely familiar. I wish I could find the article, but it's been over a year now and that article is what made me really start thinking more deeply about 'time'.
How is measuring a sequential cycle by arbitrarily giving it a start and end point akin to a fourth dimension of temporal travel? Clocks don't measure a fourth dimension of temporal travel, they measure the sequential cycles of the Earth/Sun system through assigning arbitrary points in there and calling it a fourth dimension of temporal travel.
It really sounds like we *should* be able to argue that the Earth is the center of the universe because we can observationally perceive it to be so.
I think they're going to find the brightness is off, they really ARE tied to the host galaxy, and their distances are miscalculated due to the brightness miscalculation, therefore the time dilation isn't what they thought it should be because their initial assumptions are off.
But then, in a Machian universe, there isn't any systematic inflation, either. Some here and there is permitted, just not cosmos wide. That's going to be the explanation for the diverging orbital anomalies in Pioneer and Voyager. And dark matter. And you heard it here first.
My vote's for redshift, but I'm no cosmologist.
Oh, he's wrong.
Hell, by definition it's wrong, I'd say. It's always evolving. When they get past the current morass of details and find the next slate-clearing truth, it'll be gravy time. It'll come soon enough.
Note that Penrose didn't say it was all incorrect, just not entirely right.
"My own view is that quantum mechanics is not exactly right, and I think there’s a lot of evidence for that. It’s just not direct experimental evidence within the scope of current experiments."
"But, you see, quantum mechanics has a lot of experimental support, so you’ve got to go along with a lot of it. "
Just wait until everyone finds out that Einstein and von Neumann solved a lot of the unified theory issues back in the late 30's to early 40's and the government did a coverup job that makes the development of the fusion bomb look like an open source Linux development project.
There's a group of people that think it doesn't have to be dealt with in GPS, Flandern was a big proponent of that but there are others, they all tend to cite each other as proof. Here is another nice site with a lot of jumping off points, it's not maintained much anymore so some of the links don't work now. Skip to near the end, it's the last major block, labeled "Relativity Theory Isn't Working In The GPS."
I've put this string in about four times now - eventually the editor will stick it in and leave it. The ATS post editor won't let you put in wayback links, apparently, and does a chop job on it if I try to just post it as text to cut and paste. Sorry. It was a good article. I can't figure out how to get the forum to do the link to it correctly, though.
You asked how a fundamental unit was measured in the lab. You did so regarding time, but it's the same for any of them - we pick a (generally) easily reproduced exemplar and that's 1.00 of the unit.
Oh, and for a finite but unbounded universe, ANY point you pick is the center of the universe. It's all relative.
Originally posted by djbj597922
If this is actually true then why can't the satellites that have been in space for years and years see into the future???
Originally posted by sirnex
As far as I know, redshift is our strongest indicator of an expanding universe, if that get's thrown out as inaccurate, then we lose a big part of the puzzle.
Can you explain further and provide sources to back up the explanation? What you just said seems to be the exact thing he was arguing against.
Google Video Link |