RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit

RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/27/2011 11:49:57 PM)
[sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=flash.gif]

Real0ne -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/28/2011 12:10:15 AM)
so are you planning on going to college this fall?

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/28/2011 12:21:35 AM)
Nope, I am not planning to go to college this fall. Are you?

Real0ne -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/28/2011 12:28:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather Nope, I am not planning to go to college this fall. Are you? Yeh I used to sub occasionally, but mostly do conferences. If you get into science I can give you all the fun shit that will drive your professors up a fucking wall because they wont have the answers. Just like here. No one will get close, just watch.

Termyn8or -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/28/2011 1:04:34 AM)
"Last week, CERN made the startling announcement that they had recorded particles moving faster than the speed of light." C was never unbreachable. And Al never really said it was. I still disagree with their interpretation of the one thing about light curving. Light of course does curve around objects with gravity but that does not indicate any change in C, as was interpreted from his works. He actually never did assert that, a bunch of people involved with a PBS special or some shit came up with that bullshit. Just like C being a constant, sure it is but it is not and never was any sort of limit. However understand something here, what if you are traveleing at the speed of light in relation to your native velocity space ? Light emitted from behind you is stationary to you, matter is coming at you at the speed of light. You are pretty much NOT seeing your own dimension. Enough for now, at least until I read the thread :-) T^T

DeviantlyD -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/28/2011 1:20:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or I still disagree with their interpretation of the one thing about light curving. T^T That's one of the funniest things (though not the funniest thing) I've read all evening. :D

geilematz -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/28/2011 1:34:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic ... I saw one article by a String theorist, suggesting the neutrinos never exceeded light speed, but simply took a shortcut by leaving the universe ... highly recommendable when otherwise you get stuck all day in all those traffic jams between Torino and Milano ... if they could find the entrance to this they could dump Berlusconi there too ...?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/28/2011 5:24:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper But it's the height of arrogance to presume we closed the definition of light speed at the publication his paper on special relativity. 100+ years and running. I dont think he's sweating it. How long was Newtonian physics considered to be "the last word"? [8D] Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/28/2011 6:56:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The idea that C is not a limit on the speed of massy particles is not even really being considered. There are simply too many other pieces of data confirming that. How about during cosmological inflation, after the Big Bang? Firm

SuzeCheri -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/28/2011 7:15:14 AM)
quote: If you get into science I can give you all the fun shit that will drive your professors up a fucking wall because they wont have the answers. Then do it. Give us the fun shit.

mnottertail -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/28/2011 8:58:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Last week, CERN made the startling announcement that they had recorded particles moving faster than the speed of light. I saw one article by a String theorist, suggesting the neutrinos never exceeded light speed, but simply took a shortcut by leaving the universe, but all the other reports I've seen say it's a matter of finding the glitch in the experiment. Gotta be, right? Nothing goes faster than light. That is something we know for sure about how the universe works. Just a question though, before we dismiss the whole thing. Even if it is just to be intrigued by the String possibilities, how much faith do you have that what we now know about how the universe works, is any sort of final answer? Edit to add a slideshow link. http://www.livescience.com/16214-implications-faster-light-neutrinos.html I think that Einstein took us a long way towards the edge of the envelope but certainly did not leave it. At those close tolerances and edge equations and strange and unfathomable behaviors for that which we cannot really see and measure....I don't know. Its like that post I made in response to popeye about why it had to be such and such and so and so at the EDGE of the universe and the thing you posted about the constant acceleration discrepency, there is stuff out there that will ever remain beyond our ken, I should think. While I have read some stuff about it, I don't see how neutrinos moving faster than celerity is other than a curiosity, since as you know I am all about real=exploitable. On the other hand, there was some vague reference in there about how the fact that a nuetrino (and what? we have to consider that other material objects might travel beyond celerity? shit!!!!!) traveling beyond sol would be useful....but it ain't like you can go to the corner grocery and pick up a bag of em......it isnt going to be a ubitquious thing, whatever it is, it would remain esoteric for many generations......imnsho. I dunno, I dunno, I hope it is a mistake and sol is a fixed fact, (just a personal aesthetic) but really, we know nothing, and never will, hah?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/28/2011 9:05:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: Thats way overstated. All of the theories work fine to explain the universe as we know it now. It is only when you get to singularities that they dont. Singularities like 83% of the matter and 73% of the energy in the universe being conspicuous only by it's absence? [:D] Not having instruments sensitive enough to directly observe them doesnt mean they are absent.

mnottertail -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/28/2011 9:07:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: Thats way overstated. All of the theories work fine to explain the universe as we know it now. It is only when you get to singularities that they dont. Singularities like 83% of the matter and 73% of the energy in the universe being conspicuous only by it's absence? [:D] Not having instruments sensitive enough to directly observe them doesnt mean they are absent. And there was even a thread out here and was discussed some time ago that there ain't as much 'dark matter' out there as we used to think, we made some oopsies in the matter calcs. (and who knows, they may find more mistakes reducing it even further).

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/28/2011 9:08:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper But it's the height of arrogance to presume we closed the definition of light speed at the publication his paper on special relativity. 100+ years and running. I dont think he's sweating it. How long was Newtonian physics considered to be "the last word"? [8D] Firm Its still the last word on human scales, so there is no "was". Also if you scale time by scientific progress 100 years of relativity is probably greater than the period from Newton to Einstein.

DomKen -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/28/2011 9:48:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The idea that C is not a limit on the speed of massy particles is not even really being considered. There are simply too many other pieces of data confirming that. How about during cosmological inflation, after the Big Bang? Firm C was constant. The universe was expanding though. It is a difficult concept to grasp but it is essential to understanding the big bang. The distance between two 'points' increases due to inflation. The light doesn't change velocity. This is most easily grasped by considering the objects seen by the hubble ultra deep field image. 13 odd billion years ago (roughly 600 million years after the Big Bang), when the light from those galaxies was emitted, we were not 13 billion light years away. However as the light traveled the universe expanded under it. that is why those ultra distant objects have such high red shifts. They are not moving away from us at the velocities the red shift, if it was strictly the doppler effect, would indicate but the light has been frequency shifted by the expansion of the universe. That is called Hubble's Law after Edwin Hubble who was one of the discoverers of the phenomena.

Real0ne -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/28/2011 1:27:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The idea that C is not a limit on the speed of massy particles is not even really being considered. There are simply too many other pieces of data confirming that. How about during cosmological inflation, after the Big Bang? Firm C was constant. The universe was expanding though. It is a difficult concept to grasp but it is essential to understanding the big bang. The distance between two 'points' increases due to inflation. Has nothing to do with inflation. The light doesn't change velocity. This is most easily grasped by considering the objects seen by the hubble ultra deep field image. 13 odd billion years ago (roughly 600 million years after the Big Bang), more guesswork, the expansion of the hood is not evidence of a big bang. when the light from those galaxies was emitted, we were not 13 billion light years away. However as the light traveled the universe expanded under it. that is why those ultra distant objects have such high red shifts. They are not moving away from us at the velocities the red shift, if it was strictly the doppler effect, would indicate but the light has been frequency shifted by the expansion of the universe. That is called Hubble's Law after Edwin Hubble who was one of the discoverers of the phenomena. wrong C is a constant and forever will be a constant unless and until the properties of the universe change. The only problem is with all the shit house einsteins out there. while I do not see an immediate problem with hubbles work, red shift is not an absolute answer since it is possible or even probable that small particles hurled in any given direction can appear to be color shifted as well. An expanding neighborhood has nothing to do with a big bang, except to get their names in the books of crackpot theories.

Real0ne -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/28/2011 1:31:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: Thats way overstated. All of the theories work fine to explain the universe as we know it now. It is only when you get to singularities that they dont. Singularities like 83% of the matter and 73% of the energy in the universe being conspicuous only by it's absence? [:D] Not having instruments sensitive enough to directly observe them doesnt mean they are absent. simply put fish cannot swim without water, nothing can swim in nothing.

mnottertail -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/28/2011 1:34:52 PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TahH7B_aUZc&ob=av2e There is no aether. Michelson-Morley

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/28/2011 1:35:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: Thats way overstated. All of the theories work fine to explain the universe as we know it now. It is only when you get to singularities that they dont. Singularities like 83% of the matter and 73% of the energy in the universe being conspicuous only by it's absence? [:D] Not having instruments sensitive enough to directly observe them doesnt mean they are absent. simply put fish cannot swim without water, nothing can swim in nothing. depends on your definition of nothing.

mnottertail -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/28/2011 1:37:36 PM)
while I do not see an immediate problem with hubbles work, red shift is not an absolute answer since it is possible or even probable that small particles hurled in any given direction can appear to be color shifted as well. An expanding neighborhood has nothing to do with a big bang, except to get their names in the books of crackpot theories. Entire Galaxies, in the main, are not considered to be 'smallish' in nature relativistically, even by the most profoundly ignorant.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875