Speed of Light Defeated? Einstein Proven Wrong??

[aen]

So, einstein said that nothing was faster than light? Thats just foolish. to find the fastest thing and assume nothing can be faster? Once upon a time a horse was the fastest thing in the world...

[Derelict78]

well he said e=mc^2 so for something to move faster than light it would have infinite mass and would need infinite energy. at this point physics breaks down. SO IF e=mc^2 nothing with mass can move faster than light. He was prob. correct but the cats in switzerland DID repeat their experiment (I think) like 1500 times over 3 years and keep coming up with the same results witch is why they are asking for independent analysis of their results.

[futuresailors]

[quote="Derelict78"]well he said e=mc^2 so for something to move faster than light it would have infinite mass and would need infinite energy. at this point physics breaks down. SO IF e=mc^2 nothing with mass can move faster than light.quote]
Was just about to write that...and I think "information" is included with mass.

[Derelict78]

and I think "information" is included with mass.

im not sure if I am following. What do you mean?

[futuresailors]

and I think "information" is included with mass.

im not sure if I am following. What do you mean?

I didn't fully get it myself. I remember something about how you can rotate a light source at a speed less than the speed of light to make the area illuminated move faster than the speed of light. Or something like that. Basically it's not that nothing can move faster than light, but no thing can. Things that aren't things but still exist in space can move faster than light because they're useless.

[devnulljp]

OK, so what is it then? And how did you determine that? Andwhen you come backto it next week, will your definition be the same? And if not, why not?

You could determine it, but our science is not that advanced yet IMHO. I wouldn't have any argument why it's there, than the one that it's in our head. We would have to talk philosophically, so I'm afraid there is no concrete measurement I can provide. Also, for my semantics, 'the spiritual' has a different meaning than other people tend to give it.

So, if you can't determine what it is (yet or otherwise), and have no way of describing what it is, then how do you know what it is in order to believe it exists? I don't get it.

worst. analogy. ever.

You believe it is so, I look at reality from that perspective.

I meant the whole tricorder thing.

I am an explorer. If proven wrong, great, just more gas to go further and find the truth.

So, if you're an explorer, why are you satisfied with believing things even you yourself say you can't determine exist? Again, I don't get it.

I work with ideas, philosophy, and a everdeveloping logic. Scientists work with hard facts.

That's not true, and is a common misconception I blame Gene Roddenberry for -- so many people think "Mr. Spock" when they think of science and it couldn't be further from the truth. We work with the unknown all the time.The difference is rather than throw our hands in the air and go "All hail the mystery" we try to figure it out. And often succeed where for millenia philosophers, shamans, soothsayers and priests have failed. Which is why of course we're on the internet and happily living beyond age 28.

Think I'll rather find something about Descartes and dualism if you don't mind

Not interested in reading outside your comfort zone? Not very philosophical of you
Here you go, knock yourself out

Spoiler alert: He thinks the pinneal gland is a conduit. He was wrong.

[Monkeyboard]

So, einstein said that nothing was faster than light? Thats just foolish. to find the fastest thing and assume nothing can be faster? Once upon a time a horse was the fastest thing in the world...

No.

One of the large hints aside from e=mc^2 square is the fact that regardless of the speed of an inertial system the measured light speed is always c whereas in all other cases the measured speed of everything else is the speed of the inertial system plus the speed of the measured object.

Also since when is their conflict between philosophy and science? Well there are always conflicts but this discussion makes it seem like they are opposed. Surely some epistomological ideas as well as logical philosophers and philosophers such as Wittgenstein agree with science or were scientists. Not all philosophy is vague semi-spiritual bullshit. I already think it is ridiculous the consensus seems to be that religion and science don't mix, if science is no longer allowed to mix with philosophy I'll quit my Physics and Astronomy bachelor right away.

[devnulljp]

So, einstein said that nothing was faster than light? Thats just foolish. to find the fastest thing and assume nothing can be faster? Once upon a time a horse was the fastest thing in the world...

I's only foolish oif you don't understand relativity. The whole point is that mass and energy are related. If you have no mass, you are all energy and that means you move at the speed of light. as soon as you add mass, you have to decrease speed. It's not an assumption, it's a consequence of nature.

Bad analogy time.
Imagine you have a plat plane that is 100 miles wide and a car that can travel at 100 mph.
It will take you 1 hr at top speed to go from one end to the other in a straight line east-west parallel to the edge.
If you go at an angle though, it'll take longer to reach the edge because some of the travel will have been in the north-south direction.
Motion is shared in different dimensions, and time is just another dimension of spacetime. That's all

E=mc^2

An object with mass can't go at its full potential speed because some of the energy is mass.

[devnulljp]

I already think it is ridiculous the consensus seems to be that religion and science don't mix, if science is no longer allowed to mix with philosophy I'll quit my Physics and Astronomy bachelor right away.

I agree with you that science and philosophy are compatible, but I'll disagree with you on religion and leave it at that.

[Monkeyboard]

I already think it is ridiculous the consensus seems to be that religion and science don't mix, if science is no longer allowed to mix with philosophy I'll quit my Physics and Astronomy bachelor right away.

I agree with you that science and philosophy are compatible, but I'll disagree with you on religion and leave it at that.

I accept your sympathetically worded opinion

[McSpunckle]

Way too much civility, man. Call him an asshole like a man.

: p

[Derelict78]

I already think it is ridiculous the consensus seems to be that religion and science don't mix, if science is no longer allowed to mix with philosophy I'll quit my Physics and Astronomy bachelor right away.

I agree with you that science and philosophy are compatible, but I'll disagree with you on religion and leave it at that.

talking religion vs. philosophy gets hairy FAST the two are not interchangeable. I do think that science and religion can mix though. One big difference between the two is that religion implies rituals and philosophy does not. scientific examination of rituals is mainly where I see the mixture of science and religion. Philosophy tends to be the Idea and religion the practice imo.

[Derelict78]

ASSHOLE!!!!!

[bigchiefbc]

There are quite a few reasons why no radiation or information can exceed c, and why particles that have mass travel at somewhat less than c.

1. Relativity of simultaneity means that you can run into bad causality paradoxes if information can exceed c
2. Maxwell found that all other types of electromagnetic radiation traveled at the same speed as light when in a vacuum.
3. It was shown in experiments that the measured speed of light was always exactly the same, regardless of how fast the detector was moving.
3. e=mc2 is reduced to show that massless matter travels at exactly c
4. The Lorentz transformations show that matter that has mass cannot reach c, because its momentum approaches infinity, time dilates to infinity and length contracts towards zero.

As for the other discussion going on, religion is not the same as philosophy, but it is related. It really depends how you define religion. I tend to think of religion as a subset of philosophy. Usually a religion is a belief system that defines or explains some subset of the following list of issues: origin of life, meaning of life, origin of consciousness/soul, system of morals, rules for society, what happens when you die, end of the world. Most religions also have some set of dogma, ritual and socially shared experience that goes along with it, but not all of them.

[alexa.]

So, if you can't determine what it is (yet or otherwise), and have no way of describing what it is, then how do you know what it is in order to believe it exists? I don't get it.

You never experienced a splitting of the atom literally, so why do you believe it happens?
It's not completely the same thing, but bare with me here. If it's in our head, it exists. If our head is messed up and we receive different sensory input, what would reality be? What you perceive or what others perceive? And I don't believe it, I just juggle around ideas and test them. Some fit, some don't. It's like a needle in a haystack, or a giant puzzle with 10000 extra unusable pieces.

I meant the whole tricorder thing.

Yeah I know. An instrument in a dream cannot measure anything outside a dream, and so a tricorder from a star trek game in your computer, can't measure your health status. That's my view on why somethings can't be measured.

So, if you're an explorer, why are you satisfied with believing things even you yourself say you can't determine exist? Again, I don't get it.

I'm not satisfied with believing, I'm satisfied with results. And results I do have, lots of them.
Lots of them tho are (IMO) just a result of my sensitivity to unconscious reactions to sensory input. Like telling if someone's angry, sad or uncomfortable just by looking at them. Things that our ancestors used to communicate but now we think too much and don't see those little things anymore. I can only tell you about this. The rest you need to feel for yourself I guess. And I know it's debatable if it's real cuz there's placebo, etc.

That's not true, and is a common misconception I blame Gene Roddenberry for -- so many people think "Mr. Spock" when they think of science and it couldn't be further from the truth. We work with the unknown all the time.The difference is rather than throw our hands in the air and go "All hail the mystery" we try to figure it out. And often succeed where for millenia philosophers, shamans, soothsayers and priests have failed. Which is why of course we're on the internet and happily living beyond age 28.

You misunderstood me, my idea behind this was that science loves measurements. I love particle physics, even though I don't have enough education about it, and I know that a great deal of physics today is theory and trying to test them, to find out which one is right.
Don't have prejudices, that's not nice. -.-
And if there were no science, we wouldn't have all this wonderful music to listen to <3

Not interested in reading outside your comfort zone? Not very philosophical of you
Here you go, knock yourself out
Spoiler alert: He thinks the pinneal gland is a conduit. He was wrong.

Tnx for the link.