Science contradicts itself everyday. And where supposed to believe all these theories
wtf?
science isn't asking you to believe anything. Science is a tool that you apply to problems. it has nothing to do with belief. also science does not contradic itself, inadequet theorys of how things work contradict each other. this is a good thing. it is at these contradictions that experiments can be desighned to support a better theory.
of course, the new theory will have problems as well.
Science is an arena of exploring the unknown, and as far anyone can tell, there will always be unknown stuff out there to explore.
yep, the tested theorys are used as a working model for prediction, when they fail, it is a good thing, as we get to experiment to improve the theory, so it will fail less in future predictions.
saw a doco that defined theories well.they're like canoes that you push into the sea.you build it,let it go,and watch how far it gets without taking water.
Bah, some of these reporters need to listen more carefully before trying to explain scientific principles. Items going faster than the speed of light is not at all impossible, even during Einstein's time we knew of submolecular particles that were capable of the trick.
What is impossible is an object with anything above zero mass ACCELLERATING past the speed of light. If one figured out a way to jump to extremely high speeds without an acceleration period, or one managed to neutralize mass somehow, the law of relativity has no objection to such travel. Of course, while there are theories about how to do both, our technology is FAR from being capable of such a feat.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
Sounds like all they did was create a stable wormhole. Which is good if they can repeat the process and create it on a larger scale. Good luck, and here's to the future of space travel.
Sounds like all they did was create a stable wormhole. Which is good if they can repeat the process and create it on a larger scale. Good luck, and here's to the future of space travel.
Yea one theory on breaking the speed of light is bending space/time so you can take a shortcut. Sort of like, pretend there's a pizza box and you want to get from the center of the top to the center of the bottom. Right now, we're going around the box. It's a lot easier just to go through the box.
As for black holes, what someone just stated was right, you wouldn't get 'sucked in' or 'ripped in half'. In fact, once you hit the event horizon, it would take an infinite amount of time to get ripped apart from your/the observer's perspective. I forget which one it is, but it's because gravity is so great. (Note: Time is effected by gravity) It's been a while since I've read up on that
No, no you wouldn't get there before you left. Yes, I understand his theory, but no. So what if you get there in a matter of trillions of a second? It doesn't make it negative time.
Relative to the room, no. Relative to the person moving, it does. But, just for aesthetics, if you're moving faster than light, then of course you'll reach the end point before the light reflecting off of you does, and you will, based on the travel of light, be a very slight bit in the past from where you were, because you will havebeaten the "present" (the light reflected off of you as you started moving" there. And if you're before the present, you're in the past.
Edit: But, I thought photons normally traveled fast enough to travel 3ft instantly...
Yeah, you beat the light there but you don't beat the time. No matter how fast you go you can never go faster than time.
What is time but the measure of light through space? If you travel faster than light, you arrive before the light gets there, and, from your new vantage point, before the event of you leaving ever happened. We measure events by light, and I think, technically, going to before an event happened is kind of going back in time.
Einstein said he believed it impossible to accelerate to the speed of light, I don't think he ever claimed it would be impossible to travel at or above light speed. However if Einstein was incorrect it wouldn't matter because the time and energy consumed to accelerate to the speed of light would be so costly and/or take so long that figuring out a way around it would make more sense.
Traveling back in time will never be done by humans wether it's possible or not, because as Stephen Hawkings pointed out we'd have tourists from the future otherwise.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
To be exact, Einstein said you could never send any form of information faster then ligth.
Photons brake the ligth barrier often.
If you stand and watch down a nuclear reactor you can sometimes see flashes of ligth in the water, thats a photon that broke the ligth barrier.
Quantum correlation, or like these scientists were investigating, quantum tunneling, ( more or less the same thing ), have also been known to brake the ligth barrier, but without messing with Einstein.
And how is this sceince failing?
If anything it is the absolute opposite of failing?
I shall follow this one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traveling back in time will never be done by humans wether it's possible or not, because as Stephen Hawkings pointed out we'd have tourists from the future otherwise.
you've not heard the theory that we're the aliens?
No, no you wouldn't get there before you left. Yes, I understand his theory, but no. So what if you get there in a matter of trillions of a second? It doesn't make it negative time.
I think its the same principal as someone or something falling into a blackhole you get stretched out between the two destinations and one half arrives at the end destination but the other half is still waiting to be transported there, thats what i think atleast could be wrong though.
Black Holes aren't really "holes" though. They're basically spheres like the earth or the sun or most other things with gravity. The only difference is that in a Black Hole (named for it's look) the sphere is so densely packed and the gravity is so astronomically powerful, that nothing can escape its pull, to the point where light bends and is sucked into/onto this sphere. Or atleast, that's about as much as we know about black holes currently. There's always the possibility that the mass is being sucked in by some sort of gateway.
The way a black hole would kill you though is that your molecules would be so attracted to the black hole that they would rip away from eachother in order to get there. The force holding your back molecules apart from your front molecules would effectively be canceled out and you'd simply be mushed.
Science is fun!
i know that lol, what i was trying to say is you stretched going into the black hole and the two distances are just closer and further from the black hole, in another way before you COMPLETELY left some of you arrived at the finishing destination first then the rest arrived.
Didnt click on the link, but as I recall his, Alberts, demo of light, it is relative from its starting point or point of reference. If our planet is, say, moving away from the center of the universe, at 1000 mph. And then we send a beam of light from our planet, which is already at 1000 mph, in the same opposite direction of travel, from the center of the universe. Then to us, that beam is moving at 186,000 mps. But from say someone or thing at the center of the universe, that beam would be moving at light plus 1000 mph. This is just a hypithetical illistration. Alberts was much simpler. Something to do with a fly in a shoe box, on a train. When the fly would fly in the same direction of the train, its speed relative to the shoe box was a constant, yet when added to the trains speed suddenly it was obvious that the fly was traveling faster than possible, Its all just relative. forgive crpy spelling. The way I best understand it is that speed of light is no barrier, its just the speed at which light travels, from its point of origin, be it reflection or refraction or whatever. A cheeseburger might travel differently, but its image, however, has its own principle speed relative to the cheeseburger, the cheeseburgers dierection, etc etc. blah blah blah. End of my simple thought concludes there is no such thing as nothing. LOOL.
Comments
wtf?
science isn't asking you to believe anything. Science is a tool that you apply to problems. it has nothing to do with belief. also science does not contradic itself, inadequet theorys of how things work contradict each other. this is a good thing. it is at these contradictions that experiments can be desighned to support a better theory.
of course, the new theory will have problems as well.
Science is an arena of exploring the unknown, and as far anyone can tell, there will always be unknown stuff out there to explore.
All im saying is that, a theory is technically a sensible explanation(prediction) to a natural phenomena, that has been tested
You could come up with many theories for any natural phenomena but only the ones tested and published have become known.
yep, the tested theorys are used as a working model for prediction, when they fail, it is a good thing, as we get to experiment to improve the theory, so it will fail less in future predictions.
How does this make science fail?
saw a doco that defined theories well.they're like canoes that you push into the sea.you build it,let it go,and watch how far it gets without taking water.
Bah, some of these reporters need to listen more carefully before trying to explain scientific principles. Items going faster than the speed of light is not at all impossible, even during Einstein's time we knew of submolecular particles that were capable of the trick.
What is impossible is an object with anything above zero mass ACCELLERATING past the speed of light. If one figured out a way to jump to extremely high speeds without an acceleration period, or one managed to neutralize mass somehow, the law of relativity has no objection to such travel. Of course, while there are theories about how to do both, our technology is FAR from being capable of such a feat.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
Sounds like all they did was create a stable wormhole. Which is good if they can repeat the process and create it on a larger scale. Good luck, and here's to the future of space travel.
As for black holes, what someone just stated was right, you wouldn't get 'sucked in' or 'ripped in half'. In fact, once you hit the event horizon, it would take an infinite amount of time to get ripped apart from your/the observer's perspective. I forget which one it is, but it's because gravity is so great. (Note: Time is effected by gravity) It's been a while since I've read up on that
Relative to the room, no. Relative to the person moving, it does. But, just for aesthetics, if you're moving faster than light, then of course you'll reach the end point before the light reflecting off of you does, and you will, based on the travel of light, be a very slight bit in the past from where you were, because you will havebeaten the "present" (the light reflected off of you as you started moving" there. And if you're before the present, you're in the past.
Edit: But, I thought photons normally traveled fast enough to travel 3ft instantly...
Yeah, you beat the light there but you don't beat the time. No matter how fast you go you can never go faster than time.
What is time but the measure of light through space? If you travel faster than light, you arrive before the light gets there, and, from your new vantage point, before the event of you leaving ever happened. We measure events by light, and I think, technically, going to before an event happened is kind of going back in time.
I think Futurama has some insight...
We need to move the universe around us. The ship will stay completely still while where we want to go, comes to us.
Some commentary on this subject can be found here (they don't buy it)
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070816-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-no-i-dont-think-so.html
Einstein said he believed it impossible to accelerate to the speed of light, I don't think he ever claimed it would be impossible to travel at or above light speed. However if Einstein was incorrect it wouldn't matter because the time and energy consumed to accelerate to the speed of light would be so costly and/or take so long that figuring out a way around it would make more sense.
Traveling back in time will never be done by humans wether it's possible or not, because as Stephen Hawkings pointed out we'd have tourists from the future otherwise.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
To be exact, Einstein said you could never send any form of information faster then ligth.
Photons brake the ligth barrier often.
If you stand and watch down a nuclear reactor you can sometimes see flashes of ligth in the water, thats a photon that broke the ligth barrier.
Quantum correlation, or like these scientists were investigating, quantum tunneling, ( more or less the same thing ), have also been known to brake the ligth barrier, but without messing with Einstein.
And how is this sceince failing?
If anything it is the absolute opposite of failing?
I shall follow this one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you've not heard the theory that we're the aliens?
I think its the same principal as someone or something falling into a blackhole you get stretched out between the two destinations and one half arrives at the end destination but the other half is still waiting to be transported there, thats what i think atleast could be wrong though.
Black Holes aren't really "holes" though. They're basically spheres like the earth or the sun or most other things with gravity. The only difference is that in a Black Hole (named for it's look) the sphere is so densely packed and the gravity is so astronomically powerful, that nothing can escape its pull, to the point where light bends and is sucked into/onto this sphere. Or atleast, that's about as much as we know about black holes currently. There's always the possibility that the mass is being sucked in by some sort of gateway.
The way a black hole would kill you though is that your molecules would be so attracted to the black hole that they would rip away from eachother in order to get there. The force holding your back molecules apart from your front molecules would effectively be canceled out and you'd simply be mushed.
Science is fun!
i know that lol, what i was trying to say is you stretched going into the black hole and the two distances are just closer and further from the black hole, in another way before you COMPLETELY left some of you arrived at the finishing destination first then the rest arrived.
Didnt click on the link, but as I recall his, Alberts, demo of light, it is relative from its starting point or point of reference. If our planet is, say, moving away from the center of the universe, at 1000 mph. And then we send a beam of light from our planet, which is already at 1000 mph, in the same opposite direction of travel, from the center of the universe. Then to us, that beam is moving at 186,000 mps. But from say someone or thing at the center of the universe, that beam would be moving at light plus 1000 mph. This is just a hypithetical illistration. Alberts was much simpler. Something to do with a fly in a shoe box, on a train. When the fly would fly in the same direction of the train, its speed relative to the shoe box was a constant, yet when added to the trains speed suddenly it was obvious that the fly was traveling faster than possible, Its all just relative. forgive crpy spelling. The way I best understand it is that speed of light is no barrier, its just the speed at which light travels, from its point of origin, be it reflection or refraction or whatever. A cheeseburger might travel differently, but its image, however, has its own principle speed relative to the cheeseburger, the cheeseburgers dierection, etc etc. blah blah blah. End of my simple thought concludes there is no such thing as nothing. LOOL.