'We have broken speed of light'

Watermark said:
Why would it be bullshit, Doniston?

You don't think that the speed of an object effects the time? You disagree with general relativity?

Why? What alternative do you propose? Please tell me you don't just have a "gut feeling".
Click to expand...
In order of questions:

No, i do not
I certainly disagree with this part
It is totally illogical
How about that time is time, and simply a measurement. How about that?
 
Damocles said:
In science nothing reaches the level of Theory without consistent evidence to back it up. It is the closest thing to "proven" that you can get. In other words, this has passed the test and has gone from Hypothesis, what the layman usually thinks of as a theory, to a Theory which has been tested and shown to be correct in each test.
Click to expand...
and is disproved time after time. (not necessarily this specific theory.)
 
Damocles said:
Well, there isn't much to say to that you reject the current Physics as currently accepted and tested.

This is like trying to argue the age of the universe with somebody who believes it is only 6000 years old.
Click to expand...
the code words are

"as currently accepted and tested." There was a time when it was then currently beleived and accepted that the world was flat. Your words fall on unbeleiving ears.
 
doniston said:
In order of questions:

No, i do not
I certainly disagree with this part
It is totally illogical
How about that time is time, and simply a measurement. How about that?
Click to expand...
They may seem to be outside of logic, but they are explained and tested using the language of logic, mathematics.

Anyway here is a good site that attempts to explain it in layman's terms...

http://www.costellospaceart.com/html/time_and_the_speed_of_light.html

The concepts are very difficult to wrap your brain around, but that doesn't make them any less true.

It isn't the speed that effects your perspective of time, it is the effects of gravity.

Here is the simplest and best explanation for 'Relativity' that I have seen outside of the actual math.

It begins, there are two people. One (Bill), is standing on the platform of a railroad station waiting for the train to pull in. The other, Mary, is on a train coming towards the train station. The only thing abnormal about this scene is that the train on one side, the side facing the platform, is missing its side but only to anyone on the outside of the train. People on the outside of the train can see into one side of the train because that one side seems to be missing its wall, but if your inside the train it seems like the wall is there and you can’t see outside. I know it sounds weird but just follow me because we need it to be that way but it doesn’t have much to do with what we’ll be talking about. So again Bill on the platform can see into the train but Mary inside the train cannot see out. That’s easy enough. Now inside the train, Mary is sitting on a chair in the center of the train, against the wall on the side opposite of the train platform where Bill is standing and she is facing the platform side. As she sits, Mary is watching two people play ping pong on a table in the center of the train car. Looking at the train the player towards the back of the train is about to serve the ball towards his opponent on the side of the table towards the front of the train. He is serving in the direction the train is moving. At the same time he makes his first serve, the train is passing the train station platform. The train is moving at a speed of 90 miles an hour and traveling past the train station going to the next station.

Now as the train passes Bill on the platform, his eye catches the ping pong game so both he and Mary are watching the player make his first serve. Here comes the strange part of who, what, where and when. When the player hits the ball, the ball will be moving 10 miles an hour in the direction the train is moving. As Mary watches the player hit the ball, she sees the ball move towards his opponent at a speed of 10 miles an hour. Because Mary is traveling inside the train at the trains speed, she sees the ball hit and move at 10 miles an hour. As Bill watches standing on the platform, the train is wizzing by him at 90 miles an hour. When the ball is hit he sees the ball move at 100 miles an hour because he not only sees the ball move at 10 miles an hour, he also sees the train moving at 90 miles an hour so it appears to him that the ball is traveling 100 miles an hour. Which one is right, Mary who sees the ball move at 10 miles an hour or Bill who sees the ball move at 100 miles an hour. The answer is, they are both right. How can that be you ask? Good question.

The answer is relativity. What they see is relative to where they are. Mary sitting inside, is moving at the speed of the train but can’t see outside and doesn’t perceive the movement of the train so for her the only thing she sees moving is the ball that when hit moves at 10 miles an hour. For Bill, he has a different perspective as he sees the surroundings and sees the movement of the train with the movement of the ball. For Bill, the ball is moving much faster than it is for Mary.
Click to expand...

It is a matter of perspective...
 
Damocles said:
One more time. Check into the Scientific Method. A Theory in science is not a guess, it is tested and proven to be correct in all tests, it is the closest thing to proven you will ever get from science (which, contrary to popular belief, NEVER proves anything).
Click to expand...
Again, BS. it is tested, true, and maybe the concensus says it is true. but not necessarily unanimous. (and I speak of the scientific method, not necessarily this issue.)
 
doniston said:
and is disproved time after time. (not necessarily this specific theory.)
Click to expand...
No, they are very rarely 'disproven' entirely, portions of a Theory can be changed to make it more efficient, or even more accurate, but the fundamental underlying Theory remains the same. This has happened with Quantum Theory, with Evolutionary Theory, but both of the Theories still survive.
 
doniston said:
the code words are

"as currently accepted and tested." There was a time when it was then currently beleived and accepted that the world was flat. Your words fall on unbeleiving ears.
Click to expand...
Believed and accepted, but not tested. When it became evident through testing that the earth was indeed not "flat", many rejected the testing, as you attempt to do here, but that didn't make them any more right.
 
Damocles said:
However tested, in myriad tests over decades and decades and passed in each test.

Your misunderstanding of the difference between a scientific Theory and a detective saying the word "theory" when he is guessing then testing... That is a misnomer, it would be a hypothesis at that level, untested as of yet.
Click to expand...
Nonsense, his theories are challanged all the time.
 
doniston said:
Again, BS. it is tested, true, and maybe the concensus says it is true. but not necessarily unanimous. (and I speak of the scientific method, not necessarily this issue.)
Click to expand...
It is tested and over time found to be accurate in each test, without fail. This is what creates a Theory. As I said, it is not Fact as science is not designed to find 'facts' in the sense that we know them. The scientific method is designed to test and test and test, but not to 'prove' anything.
 
Damocles said:
Believed and accepted, but not tested. When it became evident through testing that the earth was indeed not "flat", many rejected the testing, as you attempt to do here, but that didn't make them any more right.
Click to expand...
And what makes you so certain that YOU are right, rather than I???
 
Damocles said:
No, they are tested, the Theory is refined, but it is not rejected. Much like making a new more efficient carburetor for a car doesn't change that it is a car.
Click to expand...
You are really stretching aren't you. further, it is only you that have referred to law. I chose to diferentiate FACT (not law) from theory.
 
doniston said:
And what makes you so certain that YOU are right, rather than I???
Click to expand...

Because I understand the Scientific Method. I am not saying it is "right" I am saying it is tested to the level of Theory. You insist that it doesn't follow "logic" yet it is explained using very elegant mathematics, the actual language of logic. It may be difficult to understand, but that doesn't make it wrong.

This is like somebody thinking that has the wrong definition for a word that no matter how many times you post the correct definition says, "That isn't logical!"
 
doniston said:
You are really stretching aren't you. further, it is only you that have referred to law. I chose to diferentiate FACT (not law) from theory.
Click to expand...
Science is not designed to determine facts, if you understand and read the methods of science that I posted earlier you will come away with an understanding of this. Scientific Method is designed to test, test, and test, not 'prove'.
 
well since no one has traveled at the speed of light it is just a theory.
Now the law of gravity is a bit different since we can observe its effects, unlike the effects of traveling at the speed of light, hence theory.
 
No, Relativity is a Theory because it is far more complicated than the law. Your example of the Law of Gravity, can also be a Theory when taken more generally. In fact Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is an extension of the Law of Gravity. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various complex situations involving space and time.

The largest difference, as shown in the link that I gave you, is that theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas theory explains an entire group of related phenomena that are related to the law.

On that site they give the analogy of a slingshot and an automobile.

The law is like the slingshot, with its one moving part of the rubber band. The automobile has many moving parts all working in unison to perform the chore of moving things from one point to another. The automobile is complex, sometimes a change comes to one of the parts (carburetor to fuel injection) but it doesn't change the fundamental aspect that it is still a car.

A theory is like the car, components can be change or refined without changing the overall aspects of the theory on the whole.

It even gives examples of theory, including evolution, relativity, atomic theory and quantum theory. All of them are well documented and tested beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to work within the theories to refine them and make them more elegant and concise. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, completely replaced.
 
Ok Damo you keep your concepts and I will keep mine ;)

My view is just more simplistic. until we have actually tried something out I view it as a theory.
 
Darla said:
Wow. I wish that I could be here 200 years from now, just to see where all of this stuff ends up. It's mind-blowing.
Click to expand...

Well, my science fiction mind is telling me, THAT you are seeing it, or hearing about it right NOW....

All of those UFO'S are us, in the future, coming back in time to view humans of a previous time or to kidnap us for medical experiments, (most claim their kidnappings had to do with fertility experiments done on them).....

And the supposed aliens do have the same basic features as us, walking upright on 2 legs, 2 arms, hands, one head, 2 eyes, one mouth etc....at least from those that have said they have been witness to these Aliens....

But it could be that after a nuclear war here on Earth that some survive, but get larger eyes to deal with the darkness over earth and become smaller because of not having as much light....along with the greyness of their skin....

And it could be that they are traveling back in time through this speed of light knowledge that we are finding out about today, only much more advanced as the years went by....

And it also could be that they know they do not want to mess around with us directly because it would change the time continuim and and change the future, which is a reall NO, NO in science fiction terms! lol (Back to the Future Series is an example) :)

This would also make sense on why these people that are being kidnapped for their sperm and their eggs, so that us humans of the future, could find a way back to our original bodies through manipulating our sperm of today with these radiation surviving humans of the future!


Wouldn't this make a great book?

:D

Care
 
Great stuff Care you should get on it ,you have a lovely place to write.

Ive been thinking of a book too but I hate the thought of actually sitting down and writing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top