Neutrinos
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
© Copyright 2007-2024 iBankCoin All rights reserved under penalty of bodily harm. DISCLAIMER: This is a personal web site, reflecting the opinions of its author(s). It is not a production of my employer, and it is unaffiliated with any FINRA broker/dealer. Statements on this site do not represent the views or policies of anyone other than myself. The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only, and are not investing recommendations. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities. DATA INFORMATION IS PROVIDED TO THE USERS "AS IS." NEITHER iBankCoin, NOR ITS AFFILIATES, NOR ANY THIRD PARTY DATA PROVIDER MAKE ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND REGARDING THE DATA INFORMATION, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE. Privacy Policy
Interesting. The theory holds that energy is in absolute terms, if I remember right, and mass is a product of energy slowing. As objects approach the speed of light, they convert to energy and subsequently have zero mass.
I’ve always hated the fake “proof” of the speed of light. Some nonsense about being able to see a lit wick on a bomb before it’s lit.
You can abolish that proof just by substituting the word “see” for “hear,” talking about sound, proving that there is no speed faster than the speed of sound, and then reintroducing light and remember we can see.
In this case, maybe light still retains some mass?
This would help explain instant informational transfer.. One of the problematic issues with Hawking’s Theory of conservation of information.. ie Quantum Determinism. Hawking’s theory that information can be destroyed at the event horizon of a black hole directly challenged Special Relativity.. but was since cast down by Leonard Susskind.. The same for theories of how gravity’s information is transmitted instantaneously.. ergo faster than the speed of light.. Confirmation of this result would indeed be groundbreaking… operative word being confirmation…
Quite the opposite Mr. Thaler.. as objects approach the speed of light their ‘relative’ mass grows… requiring further energy to power further acceleration.. a sort of asymptotic curve if you will…
Light can be quantized or wave-like… ie the famous/infamous double slit experiment… yes.. the quantum world is bizarre, but strangeness should never allow us to assume we shall never understand 🙂
Oh, I started to pen a long piece arguing with you, but then looked it up and you’re right. It looks like I mistook massless particles for indication that light speed reduces mass.
I retain my hatred of the laymen’s proof of lightspeed, however.
Understood :). Tis quite a convoluted thing ..this physics business.
An oldie-but-goodie:
The bartender says “Sorry, we don’t serve neutrinos here.”
A superluminal neutrino flies through a bar.
Nice EQ. Very nice.
Nerds ( burp)
The truth is, scientists are just as much victim to the reticular activating system (the thing that creates bias based upon our beliefs and causes us to ignore the facts) as much as anyone else.
Scientists isolate all parts during a study to “reduce bias” but also reduce synergistic effects in the process. They try to eliminate consciousness to reduce bias but a perception of what is “collective consciousness” is what we use to determine what’s real anyways.
Scientists think matter is 99.99% empty space, 99.99% of the information we get is based on 99.99% emptiness within our brains which are also 99.99% emptiness including the understanding about what “matter” is like.
Based on that info, therefore we can “conclude” that we know nothing without faith in the .001% whether that be a God or Gods, or our 5 senses, what our 5 senses are telling us about someone else’s observation, what our sense are telling us about things we read which are based upon 5 senses of someone to perceive a study based on 5 senses of someone else’s 5 senses and so on to draw about what is perceived to be a “shared conclusion”, all of which based on where belief systems of others appear to intersect. Or perhaps that other 99.99% just can’t be understood by our paradigm.
Science even needs to take consciousness out of the equation because belief systems fuck up experiments via “observer bias”. Yet they come up with things like “laws of entropy” One of which says “things are becoming more and more random.” Yet I don’t find any beer randomly floating in the universe, instead it is created out of structured order that once didn’t exist from bottle factories, beer factories and ordered fermenting. Of course if you rule out consciousness, you can pretty much come up with any theory and it can’t really be “proven” via the retarded backwards “double blind” studies intended to remove the very bias under which our belief system functions which determines one’s interpretation of reality.
Another of the Laws of entropy which says “matter cannot be created or destroyed” (It got here somehow and how do you explain nutrino reactions which seem to create energy)? Oh wait, we believe in the law of entropy so that belief system will cloud our judgement and we will have to come up with some other idea! If we said the law of entropy was wrong, everything else in science would be fucked and our purpose of scientists would be as worthless as a stock broker without a stock market.
Our understanding of reality is what makes life real, or at least appear that way. What’s to say the one guy that we think is in a mental institution isn’t the only one that sees reality for what it is, or that we are that guy hallucinating this reality? The only thing we know is how the world functions to us as an individual in conjunction with everything else around us that we perceive and believe to be real. We have no color cones in a part of our eye but we do not see “blackness” or “whiteness” in that blind spot, but hallucinate the patterns nearby over it and assume that it’s real. We filter over 50% of the visual information we take in. Life is all bullshit and the meaning is only the one you give it. Even in the bible the “God” they talk about says “I am the I am” God is the consciousness that we think we somehow “possess” when we all are shared creators of this universe. It is the beginning and the end, and the reality that God makes for us, is the reality that we make for ourselves. God is the consciousness we all share, but God is not the ‘EGO’ when I say “I”. Do you refer to yourself as “We” even though your body is made up of multiple “cells” of which are self aware that are also made up of millions of atoms which are self aware enough not to collide electrons into each other? No, you say “I”. But what are “you”, if you cut off a limb, do you suddenly become less self aware? Does your consciousness somehow split off so that your leg is all that is real? Or is it your observation that makes it real? You cannot isolate a single part of your brain that you could take out to suddenly no longer be aware. “God” is simply the collective “I” just as individuals each of us are the collective embodiment “I” or sum of all parts that is actually greater than the whole. Science will never effectively explain synergy, but they can observe it’s phenomenon . And rather than determining that “reducing variables” and “eliminating consciousness” is worthless due to effects of synergy, they act as if you can isolate all factors the same way a dumb stock picker thinks he could look at the gold/silver ratio and the dow/gold ratio and by looking at the price of silver determine what the price of the dow should be. It just doesn’t work like that. Reality isn’t as simple as we try to make it! Everything in our view therefore must be subjective, and anyone who disagrees with anyone is always just as much wrong as right.
Go eat a sandwich.
Hey, all of this was covered and predicted by Billy Meier; from Einstein’s theory of relativity to traveling faster than the speed of light….but I was cut off from doing news…. suit yourself.
Nikola Tesla Wins Again!
“Tesla was critical of Einstein’s relativity work, calling it:
…[a] magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king … its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists …[78]
Tesla also argued:
I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.[79]
Tesla also believed that much of Albert Einstein’s relativity theory had already been proposed by RuÄ‘er BoÅ¡ković, stating in an unpublished interview:
…the relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its present proponents. It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious countryman RuÄ‘er BoÅ¡ković, the great philosopher, who, notwithstanding other and multifold obligations, wrote a thousand volumes of excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects. BoÅ¡ković dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum …’.[80]”