Jump to content

servantx

Members
  • Posts

    662
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Posts posted by servantx

  1. Parallel universe created by ‘car crash’

     

     

     

     

    Now a new study has stumbled upon an incredible possibility, that the ‘Cold Spot’ cannot be explained as a void and was not due to “line-of-sight” effects.

     

     

     

    Instead researchers at Durham University believe it could be the first evidence of the “multiverse”.

     

    They believe a parallel universe could have smashed into ours affecting it in a way similar to a multiple vehicle pileup.

     

     

     

    That impact was so incredible, according to this research, that it pushed energy out of a huge region of space resulting in the Cold Spot.

     

     

     

    “Perhaps the most exciting explanation is that the Cold Spot was caused by a collision between our universe and another bubble universe, believe it or not” said Professon Tom Shanks, an astronomer at Durham University and a co-author of the study.

     

     

     

     

     

    ‘If further, more detailed, analysis proves this to be the case then the Cold Spot might be taken as the first evidence for the multiverse.’

     

  2. Moreover, China's Tianhe-1 supercomputer, one of the top 24 supercomputer in the world is located underground of the explosion site. The explosion damage part of the computer underground, but the supercomputer is still functional. The computer was shutdown for safety reasons after the blast, but 6 days ago it is back online. Tianhe-1 supercomputer is the main ground control unit of China's space station, and Tianjin produces parts for China's ambitious space station project to be completed in 2022. The explosion has halted the progress of their space station project.

     

    Some conspiracy theorists also suggest that Tianhe-1 supercomputer is responsible for some of the hacking attempts from China against other countries' military and political systems.

     

    [ATTACH=full]302[/ATTACH]

     

     

  3. From the aerial shots of China Tianjin chemical explosion 2015 site, it looks like a crate made by space age kinetic tactical weapons.

     

    Normal chemical explosion spreads sideway only, it has no momentum to impact the ground downward making a crate like it is shown in the photos.

     

    Some conspiracy theorists suggested that the blast might be a result of space age tactical weapon to crash the Chinese market and damage its global financial dominance, others claim that it is part of the new world order to set up a series of events which will eventually lead to ww3.

     

    [ATTACH=full]295[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]296[/ATTACH]

     

     

  4. "The Australian prime minister’s chief business adviser has accused the United Nations of using debunked climate change science to lead a new world order – provocative claims made to coincide with a visit from the top UN climate negotiator.

     

    Maurice Newman, the chairman of Abbott’s business advisory council and a climate change sceptic with a history of making provocative statements, said the UN was using false models showing sustained temperature increases to end democracy and impose authoritarian rule.

     

    “The real agenda is concentrated political authority,” Newman wrote in an opinion piece published in the Australian newspaper. “Global warming is the hook. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN..."

     

    “It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.”

     

    http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/may/08/australia-pms-adviser-climate-change-is-un-hoax-to-create-new-world-order?utm_content=buffer99b13&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

     

     

  5. "Much of the scientific community believes that faster-than-light travel is physically impossible, and no matter the material, accelerating something to such ludicrous speeds simply can't happen.

     

    However, there are also those who believe that faster-than-light travel is possible - and one team may have just accidentally stumbled onto it.

     

    A team at NASA may have unintentionally accelerated particles to faster-than-light speeds while using the EmDrive resonance chamber - basically, if their findings turn out to be accurate, the team may have just discovered faster-than-light travel.

     

    To clarify, the EmDrive resonance chamber is a proposed method of interstellar propulsion: basically, this could end up being the engines that the starships of the future use. The advantages of using such a device are numerous: it's electrically powered, it features no moving parts and doesn't require any material fuel to move. If it ends up working as planned, there's a good chance that it could lead to a new breed of engine."

     

    http://www.techtimes.com/articles/49360/20150428/nasa-may-have-accidentally-discovered-faster-than-light-travel.htm

     

    "A group at NASA’s Johnson Space Center has successfully tested an electromagnetic (EM) propulsion drive in a vacuum – a major breakthrough for a multi-year international effort comprising several competing research teams. Thrust measurements of the EM Drive defy classical physics’ expectations that such a closed (microwave) cavity should be unusable for space propulsion because of the law of conservation of momentum.

     

    EM Drive:

     

    Last summer, NASA Eagleworks – an advanced propulsion research group led by Dr. Harold “Sonny” White at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) – made waves throughout the scientific and technical communities when the group presented their test results on July 28-30, 2014, at the 50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference in Cleveland, Ohio.

     

    Those results related to experimental testing of an EM Drive – a concept that originated around 2001 when a small UK company, Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd (SPR), under Roger J. Shawyer, started a Research and Development (R&D) program.

     

    The concept of an EM Drive as put forth by SPR was that electromagnetic microwave cavities might provide for the direct conversion of electrical energy to thrust without the need to expel any propellant.

     

    spacer.pngThis lack of expulsion of propellant from the drive was met with initial skepticism within the scientific community because this lack of propellant expulsion would leave nothing to balance the change in the spacecraft’s momentum if it were able to accelerate.

     

    However, in 2010, Prof. Juan Yang in China began publishing about her research into EM Drive technology, culminating in her 2012 paper reporting higher input power (2.5kW) and tested thrust (720mN) levels of an EM Drive.

     

    In 2014, Prof. Yang’s papers reported extensive tests involving internal temperature measurements with embedded thermocouples.

     

    It was reported (in SPR Ltd.’s website) that if the Chinese EM Drive were to be installed in the International Space Station (ISS) and work as reported, it could provide the necessary delta-V (change in velocity needed to perform an on-orbit maneuver) to compensate for the Station’s orbital decay and thus eliminate the requirement of re-boosts from visiting vehicles. Despite these reports, Prof. Yang offered no scientifically-accepted explanation as to how the EM Drive can produce propulsion in space.

     

    spacer.pngDr. White proposed that the EM Drive’s thrust was due to the Quantum Vacuum (the quantum state with the lowest possible energy) behaving like propellant ions behave in a MagnetoHydroDynamics drive (a method electrifying propellant and then directing it with magnetic fields to push a spacecraft in the opposite direction) for spacecraft propulsion.

     

    In Dr. White’s model, the propellant ions of the MagnetoHydroDynamics drive are replaced as the fuel source by the virtual particles of the Quantum Vacuum, eliminating the need to carry propellant.

     

    This model was also met with criticism in the scientific community because the Quantum Vacuum cannot be ionized and is understood to be “frame-less” – meaning you cannot “push” against it, as required for momentum.

     

    The tests reported by Dr. White’s team in July 2014 were not conducted in a vacuum, and none of the tests reported by Prof. Yang in China or Mr. Shawyer in the UK were conducted in a vacuum either.

     

    The scientific community met these NASA tests with skepticism and a number of physicists proposed that the measured thrust force in the US, UK, and China tests was more likely due to (external to the EM Drive cavity) natural thermal convection currents arising from microwave heating (internal to the EM Drive cavity).

     

    However, Paul March, an engineer at NASA Eagleworks, recently reported in NASASpaceFlight.com’s forum (on a thread now over 500,000 views) that NASA has successfully tested their EM Drive in a hard vacuum – the first time any organization has reported such a successful test.

     

    To this end, NASA Eagleworks has now nullified the prevailing hypothesis that thrust measurements were due to thermal convection.

     

    spacer.pngA community of enthusiasts, engineers, and scientists on several continents joined forces on the NASASpaceflight.com EM Drive forumto thoroughly examine the experiments and discuss theories of operation of the EM Drive.

     

    The quality of forum discussions attracted the attention of EagleWorks team member Paul March at NASA, who has shared testing and background information with the group in order to fill in information gaps and further the dialogue.

     

    This synergy between NASASpaceflight.com contributors and NASA has resulted in several contributions to the body of knowledge about the EM Drive.

     

    The NASASpaceflight.com group has given consideration to whether the experimental measurements of thrust force were the result of an artifact. Despite considerable effort within the NASASpaceflight.com forum to dismiss the reported thrust as an artifact, the EM Drive results have yet to be falsified.

     

    After consistent reports of thrust measurements from EM Drive experiments in the US, UK, and China – at thrust levels several thousand times in excess of a photon rocket, and now under hard vacuum conditions – the question of where the thrust is coming from deserves serious inquiry.

     

    http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/

     

     

  6. It is only the perspective, the point of view, all 3 theories are valid from their view of observation:

     

    A) a fixed point on the ground of earth (geocentric model)

     

    B) a fixed point in the solar system in relation to the sun. (heliocentric model)

     

    C) a fixed stationary point outside the galaxy and see the milky way as a whole giant spinning galaxy. (helical model)

     

    Helical model:

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4V-ooITrws

     

  7. The earth's rotation speed, earth's revolving speed around the sun, the sun's revolving speed around the milky way all contributed to the time as you know it. Even attitude (height) of your physical position on earth or above the earth (e.g. satellite) varies your perception of time. Also, the gravity (which is an acceleration) also effect time related to the object.

     

    It is rotation in a rotation in a rotation in rotation etc. Have a look at this video to have a better concept.

     

    The first video shows how the sun/solar system move around our galaxy - the milky way, in a wave form revolving around the centre of the galaxy.

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU

  8. Look at the formula of Instantaneous Angular Acceleration formula in this graph supplied by NASA.

     

    Now do the high school algebra math and put time (t) on the left side. So (t) = ?

     

    And you can calculate the time in relation to the acceleration and velocity of the object. The faster you move, the slower the time in general.

     

    Time, is not a fixed variable, but a measurement that can be varied through the change of speed.

     

    [ATTACH=full]234[/ATTACH]

     

     

  9. The Sun revolves around the centre of our galaxy - the Milky Way. Have a look at the approximate position of our sun and our solar system. However, in the insignificantly small humans' eyes, the stars, the sun, the moon and the galaxy looks like revolving around us in the sky, it is only an optical illusion based on the location of the point of view of the camera. When you stand on the ground of the earth looking up to the sky, you see things with self awareness of yourself as the centre point of view or perception. Both interpretations of earth revolve around the sun, or sun and stars revolve around the earth are valid, but only in the different point of view of how you see things. The only difference is where you put the camera, fixed on the ground, on a single point on the crust of the earth looking upward, or put the camera in space, in a stationary position? But if you put your camera in space, is it stationary like somewhere outside the spinning galaxy, where you see the sun is moving and revolving around the centre of the galaxy, or do you put the camera in station position in relation to the position of the sun which moves as the sun moves, so that in that perspective you see the planets in the solar system revolve around the sun as the stationary centre of the solar system (which is actually revolving a larger galaxy system itself)?

     

    The interpretation of the which object revolve which other object depends on if you put the lens and see things from a point related to:

     

    A) a fixed point on the ground of earth

     

    B) a fixed point in the solar system in relation to the sun.

     

    C) a fixed stationary point outside the galaxy and see the milky way as a whole giant spinning galaxy.

     

    Look at the picture in this post for a clearer understanding of the position of our solar system.

     

    [missing attachment]

     

     

  10. Can someone identify what were they doing to the babies in the 1950s in these photos? Is it some kinds of medical treatment or experiment?

     

    [ATTACH]506[/ATTACH]

     

    [ATTACH]507[/ATTACH]

     

    [ATTACH]508[/ATTACH]

     

    [ATTACH]509[/ATTACH]

     

    [ATTACH]506[/ATTACH]

     

    [ATTACH]507[/ATTACH]

     

    [ATTACH]508[/ATTACH]

     

    [ATTACH]509[/ATTACH]

     

    spacer.png

     

    spacer.png

     

    spacer.png

     

    spacer.png

     

     

  11. Interesting article and thanks for posting your synopsis and explanation. while i am no scientist, though, it always seems odd to me, to apply quantum physics as a metaphor for larger systems. Perhaps this probability model would apply on a greater scale, though.

    Well, if CTC is proven to be working in quantum level, then I assume the next step is putting physical objects into quantum state and bringing it back to physical world.

     

    What I say may sounds a bit like "Beam me up, Scotty" in Star Trek. :) Quantum teleportation is explained in this video.

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqCElpLjaBU

  12. The scientific paper:

     

    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140619/ncomms5145/full/ncomms5145.html

     

    Experimental simulation of closed timelike curves

     

    Martin Ringbauer,

     

    Matthew A. Broome,

     

    Casey R. Myers,

     

    Andrew G. White

     

    & Timothy C. Ralph

     

    Abstract

     

    Closed timelike curves are among the most controversial features of modern physics. As legitimate solutions to Einstein’s field equations, they allow for time travel, which instinctively seems paradoxical. However, in the quantum regime these paradoxes can be resolved, leaving closed timelike curves consistent with relativity. The study of these systems therefore provides valuable insight into nonlinearities and the emergence of causal structures in quantum mechanics—essential for any formulation of a quantum theory of gravity. Here we experimentally simulate the nonlinear behaviour of a qubit interacting unitarily with an older version of itself, addressing some of the fascinating effects that arise in systems traversing a closed timelike curve. These include perfect discrimination of non-orthogonal states and, most intriguingly, the ability to distinguish nominally equivalent ways of preparing pure quantum states. Finally, we examine the dependence of these effects on the initial qubit state, the form of the unitary interaction and the influence of decoherence.

     

     

  13. Time Travel Simulation Resolves “Grandfather Paradox”

     

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-travel-simulation-resolves-grandfather-paradox/

     

    What would happen to you if you went back in time and killed your grandfather? A model using photons reveals that quantum mechanics can solve the quandary—and even foil quantum cryptography

     

    Experimenting with a curve

     

    Recently Ralph and his PhD student Martin Ringbauer led a team that experimentally simulated Deutsch's model of CTCs for the very first time, testing and confirming many aspects of the two-decades-old theory. Theirfindings are published in Nature Communications. Much of their simulation revolved around investigating how Deutsch's model deals with the “grandfather paradox,” a hypothetical scenario in which someone uses a CTC to travel back through time to murder her own grandfather, thus preventing her own later birth. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.)

     

    Deutsch's quantum solution to the grandfather paradox works something like this:

     

    Instead of a human being traversing a CTC to kill her ancestor, imagine that a fundamental particle goes back in time to flip a switch on the particle-generating machine that created it. If the particle flips the switch, the machine emits a particle—the particle—back into the CTC; if the switch isn't flipped, the machine emits nothing. In this scenario there is no a priorideterministic certainty to the particle's emission, only a distribution of probabilities. Deutsch's insight was to postulate self-consistency in the quantum realm, to insist that any particle entering one end of a CTC must emerge at the other end with identical properties. Therefore, a particle emitted by the machine with a probability of one half would enter the CTC and come out the other end to flip the switch with a probability of one half, imbuing itself at birth with a probability of one half of going back to flip the switch.If the particle were a person, she would be born with a one-half probability of killing her grandfather, giving her grandfather a one-half probability of escaping death at her hands—good enough in probabilistic terms to close the causative loop and escape the paradox.Strange though it may be, this solution is in keeping with the known laws of quantum mechanics.

     

    In their new simulation Ralph, Ringbauer and their colleagues studied Deutsch's model using interactions between pairs of polarized photons within a quantum system that they argue is mathematically equivalent to a single photon traversing a CTC. "We encode their polarization so that the second one acts as kind of a past incarnation of the first,” Ringbauer says. So instead of sending a person through a time loop, they created a stunt double of the person and ran him through a time-loop simulator to see if the doppelganger emerging from a CTC exactly resembled the original person as he was in that moment in the past.

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...