25 Apr 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseImagine if we really could talk out of our asses....
He is talking out his ass, just spewing whatever BS comes to mind ATT, next month he will be back to conspiracy theories, nobody landed on the moon, Hoffa is buried inside Hoover dam, Earth is flat.......
25 Apr 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @metal-brainwish it was...i copped it from one of the JPL team leads when we were discussing the Biefeld-Brown effect on electrofluid dynamics. You might have heard about ionic winds that can power aircraft. It's one of the applications.
I've never heard that theory. Is it your own?
- Joined
- 20 May 17
- Moves
- 17541
26 Apr 18
Originally posted by @uzlesswhich explains why no Gravitons have ever been detected..
Gravity is the result of quantum entanglement...."Gravitons" are just the term we use to explain how the information from one entangled particle is transfered to the other entangled particle instantaneously.
05 May 18
Originally posted by @uzlessActually impossible since it has been proven over and over information can NEVER travel faster that the speed of light.
its hard to "detect" the instantaneous passage of information....
Only in your fantasy universe can that happen. In the REAL universe that is against the law.
07 May 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseThere are several ways to go faster than light....Here's one...read the link to discover more.
Actually impossible since it has been proven over and over information can NEVER travel faster that the speed of light.
Only in your fantasy universe can that happen. In the REAL universe that is against the law.
3. Quantum entanglement moves faster than light. If I have two electrons close together, they can vibrate in unison, according to the quantum theory. If I then separate them, an invisible umbilical cord emerges which connects the two electrons, even though they may be separated by many light years. If I jiggle one electron, the other electron "senses" this vibration instantly, faster than the speed of light. Einstein thought that this therefore disproved the quantum theory, since nothing can go faster than light.
But actually this experiment (the EPR experiment) has been done many times, and each time Einstein was wrong.
http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/what-travels-faster-than-the-speed-of-light
09 May 18
Originally posted by @uzlessSure, you can wave a laser beam at the moon and the light beam could travel across the lunar surface faster than light but you cannot send information that way. Sorry to spoil your plot. If they ever come up with negative matter it might change but don't hold your breath.
There are several ways to go faster than light....Here's one...read the link to discover more.
3. Quantum entanglement moves faster than light. If I have two electrons close together, they can vibrate in unison, according to the quantum theory. If I then separate them, an invisible umbilical cord emerges which connects the two electrons, even though they ...[text shortened]... was wrong.
http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/what-travels-faster-than-the-speed-of-light
20 Jun 18
Originally posted by @deepthoughthttps://arxiv.org/abs/1712.02710
Kind of. The principle of equivalence has an observer unable to distinguish between a kinematic acceleration and a gravitational acceleration, but the clock hypothesis does distinguish between the two. Our "observer in a box" who knows they are accelerating but doesn't know whether it is due to changing velocity or a gravitational field can't tell if ...[text shortened]... describe it. Roughly, I don't think you'll be able to predict enough using just time dilation.
20 Jun 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainApropos of what exactly, what do you think this paper shows?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.02710
20 Jun 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @deepthoughtWhat the heck IS Horndeski space? I sure don't know what they are talking about.
Apropos of what exactly, what do you think this paper shows?
20 Jun 18
Originally posted by @deepthoughthttps://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.061501
Apropos of what exactly, what do you think this paper shows?
20 Jun 18
9 edits
Originally posted by @metal-brainI just read all of that link.
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.061501
It first explains that theories of dark energy and modified gravity can be strongly constrained by observations, such as that of the recently detected gravitational wave event. So what? We already knew this.
It then explains how they examined one type of consistency with observation Horndeski theories, which are some obscure theories you and even I would understand nothing about because you would need to have understanding of very advanced physics to understand them, need to have to have any credibility and found it at least passed merely that consistency-with-observation test (which, of course, is far from proving those theories correct).
What about it? What do you claim this link shows? You don't have a clue what the hell they are talking about. If you deny this, without copy and paste explain in your own words exactly what these theories say so prove to us you understand the physics...
20 Jun 18
Originally posted by @humyI had to look it up. Horndeski gravity is just the most general theory one can write down using tensor and scalar quantities. It contains Einstein's theory as a special case. I'm not sure what the point of all this is since all MetalBrain is doing is posting links to research papers which don't contradict anything I said earlier in the thread.
I just read all of that link.
It first explains that theories of dark energy and modified gravity can be strongly constrained by observations, such as that of the recently detected gravitational wave event. So what? We already knew this.
It then explains how they examined one type of consistency with observation Horndeski theories, which are some obscure the ...[text shortened]... n in your own words exactly what these theories say so prove to us you understand the physics...