FTL travel here we come!
- Thread starter shavedape
- Start date
S
Stonelesscutter
Guest
Indeed. I have missed him too.
Jim of WVa
Well Known GateFan
Empirical Science
Empirical Science does it...
...again.
http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php
Empirical Science does it...
...again.
http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php
S
Stonelesscutter
Guest
Those good old boys in Groningen know how to get things done. 
SciphonicStranger
Objects may be closer than they appear
Once again, Einstein is hard to beat. 
Once again, Einstein is hard to beat.
Hard, not impossible.
EDIT: I just read that article and they are trying to USE relativity to make sense of the FTL neutrinos? LMAO!
There are no constants in this universe, and anything that tries to establish one or use one to describe something is going to be WRONG. There is no such thing as a unicorn. But people have produced "unicorn horns" and somebody may even find some DNA somewhere and claim it is unicorn DNA. This is just like many physics students do when they want to balance an equation and there is "leftover" or "missing" mass. They then invent a new particle to compensate for the result. In this case, the results are consistently showing that neutrinos travel faster than light. So, they are saying RELATIVITY accounts for 32 nanoseconds of the discrepancy? LOL!
Leprechauns exist....a leprechaun swore on his pot of gold they do.
The neutrinos are traveling faster than light, but relativity explains it? Lollllllllll!Most people look at the loftier scientific community as though they are somehow infallible. The reality is that they are LAZY and they want to fall back on the established tenets to make things easier for them. Nobody wants to topple Einstein's theory of relativity because then it would have to be replaced and nobody seems up to the task. They could start with FACTS:
- There is no such thing as a physical constant in this universe.
- The speed of light is NOT constant (funny, why dont they apply relativity to light?). Nothing is constant.
- There is no such thing as a true "vacuum", and space is not a vacuum.
- Time travel is IMPOSSIBLE. The only way it is possible is using Einsteinian relativity.
S
Stonelesscutter
Guest
I don't see why you're making a laugh of that article. It's pretty clear. In fact it's so clear that I'm facepalming myself into the ground wondering why the researchers who did the experiment made this mistake in the first place. You can't measure a moving object from another moving object without compensating for the movement of the second object.
SciphonicStranger
Objects may be closer than they appear
I agree. Those good ol' boys in Groningen look like dip-shits. I hope they don't accidentally create a black hole with that thing.
Its funny to me because physics is one of my favorite subjects. I have been reading all of the old stuff that was in place before Einstein to see if any promising visionary had a different take, but no such luck. All that is clear is that the researchers determined that neutrinos were travelling faster than the "assumed" speed of light, CONSISTENTLY. Its not a mistake that things can travel faster than light. Only Einstein says they cant, the universe is omnipotent and doesnt give a F$@# about our silly little sciences. Less than 300 years ago, scientists said humans would never travel faster than the speed of sound. The scientific community brought forth such gems as "race" (does not exist), "Piltdown Man" a hoax that lasted 50 years! Phrenology, the "safe" dioxins that poison our planet, Thalidomide...the list goes on. What is clear to me is that the "scientific community" is not very scientific. They seem only to be capable of making mistakes and falling back on the vision of ONE man. I was reading a paper on Hawking Radiation....really? So, Hawking Radiation describes radiation EMANATING from a black hole? And this radiation comes from particles that somehow escape being sucked into the event horizon when even light cannot escape? I found myself LAUGHING just as I was at that other article. Its plain silly.
When a new scientific visionary hits the scene, we will all know it. Right now, we just have a bunch of blind followers having faith in the Einstein religion. Here is an example of scientific acrobatics used to FORCE an obvious erroneous theory from Einstein into correctness using a similar method as the recent CERN researchers who want to prove that the neutrinos follow Einstein's rules after all. THEY DONT!
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/aberration/
Einstein does not make the rules. His writings and equations only VAGUELY describe this universe. There is lots of laziness in the scientific community. Not just in physics, but in biology, agriculture, architecture, even electronics. Only the outer veneer is important now...how it LOOKS. The simple equation we all know:
1 + 1 = 2
Okay, so find me one thing, and then another thing (they must be IDENTICAL for this equation to be accurate, but no two things are identical...not even manmade things) and then put them together and say it is now equal to "2". I am not stupid, of course it is FAR more convenient to use this basic math to count things. After all, I just have a couple of things and I want to convey that I have TWO of the same things. That they are not identical is not important. But when we are talking about quantum physics and when the equations are yielding accuracy measured in nanoseconds, it matters a LOT. I dont expect anyone who is not a science enthusiast to understand where Im coming from. Im not saying my understandings are "better" than those of Einstein followers. Im saying that it is DIFFERENT. In the younger, more open-minded physics circles, the new theories are emerging which give us an alternative to Einsteinian relativity. The String Theory, and even quantum mechanics has come from this community. The current establishment in physics is akin to a religion, complete with it's Bible and followers. Dare contradict Einstein and you are crazy.
S
Stonelesscutter
Guest
No-one can deny that Einstein was a genius. Since Einstein the greatest minds on the planet have been studying his theories. There has never been anyone who could prove him wrong. Yet simultaneously all kinds of experiments lead to conclusions which supported Einstein's theories, even some when they weren't researching those at all.
All the young budding scientist with hot new theories like string theory would have been nowhere without Einstein's work. So even their work is based on his even if it is only from a will to prove him wrong. Now string theory is very interesting but it's also insanely difficult to comprehend. Who can say that theory is right or wrong? Or that Einstein's theory is right or wrong? Nobody can at this stage. They may even both be right. At this time there is a helluva lot more evidence to support Einstein's theories.
Regarding the Hawking radiation, I don't think that's far fetched at all. Black holes are mysterious things. Just because light can't escape them because of gravitational forces (which is in itself an assumption) doesn't mean there aren't other particles/waves that can. These things are supposedly sucking up massive amounts of matter/energy, it has to go somewhere.
Back to the topic of this thread. The article gives clear reasoning about the error in the measurement. To me it doesn't read as if it was meant to put a feather up Einstein's butt at all. It reads as an admittance of failure on the part of the researchers. Ofcourse if you read it wanting to find certain information than you shall find it.
All the young budding scientist with hot new theories like string theory would have been nowhere without Einstein's work. So even their work is based on his even if it is only from a will to prove him wrong. Now string theory is very interesting but it's also insanely difficult to comprehend. Who can say that theory is right or wrong? Or that Einstein's theory is right or wrong? Nobody can at this stage. They may even both be right. At this time there is a helluva lot more evidence to support Einstein's theories.
Regarding the Hawking radiation, I don't think that's far fetched at all. Black holes are mysterious things. Just because light can't escape them because of gravitational forces (which is in itself an assumption) doesn't mean there aren't other particles/waves that can. These things are supposedly sucking up massive amounts of matter/energy, it has to go somewhere.
Back to the topic of this thread. The article gives clear reasoning about the error in the measurement. To me it doesn't read as if it was meant to put a feather up Einstein's butt at all. It reads as an admittance of failure on the part of the researchers. Ofcourse if you read it wanting to find certain information than you shall find it.
SciphonicStranger
Objects may be closer than they appear
IDK, it sounded to me like a measurement problem. Didn't they have the same kind of measurement issue with GPS satellites? 
S
Stonelesscutter
Guest
IDK, it sounded to me like a measurement problem. Didn't they have the same kind of measurement issue with GPS satellites?
Indeed. A measurement problem. That's empirical science for you.
Sorry Stone, but you are mistaken. First of all, the PROBLEM is that everybody is studying only Einstein's theories and not looking at the raw reality of the Universe and how it operates in REALITY. Einstein is being proven wrong all the time dude! Most importantly is the debunking of the lightspeed "constant" when it is generally acknowledged that the speed of light is not constant (and along with that constant, you would have to throw out most of these as well):
http://www.alcyone.com/max/reference/physics/constants.html
Once done, physics can move forward and come out of the dark ages by not following Einsteinian physics. We NEED for this to happen because physics is stalled and stagnant. Everything is a derivative of Einstein's work. Furthermore, theorists who seek to give new understandings and use new equations are "wrong" because those theories are incompatible with Einsteinian physics? At the root of everything Einstein is the concept of a "constant". THEY DO NOT EXIST. Yet every equation created for relativity uses these constants to describe everything from motion to space-time. At best, we only get APPROXIMATIONS of what is real, not the real thing.
Dude, the same could be said of Newton with regard to Einstein. Einstein would be nowhere without Newton. The thing is, physics does not have somebody's name. But in the current scientific community, you find more NAMES OF PEOPLE attached to natural processes that have nothing to do with those people. There is no need to wait for two generations to see how the Einstein chapter is going to play out. The concept of "constants" will be tossed out of physics because supercomputers can now properly use VARIABLES to describe everything, and can perform the much much lengthier calculations that current physics avoids by using their convenient "constants".
WHAT particles and waves? This is the description of Hawking Radiation: http://www.obscure.org/physics-faq/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html IT'S RIDICULOUS! The only reason there is Hawking Radiation is because Stephen Hawking wanted to be connected to physics the way his hero Einstein was. He wanted to be the next Einstein. So, he now has radiation named after him...but does it exist? LOL! Excerpt:
:roll:
. Physics has become the snob science, and the social hierarchies in it are more important than science. Let me ask you a question....is physics "better" at Oxford than it is at say....Generic Community College in South Dakota? Really think before you answer. Physics is physics is physics. I dont know why it seems to me that coffee tastes better at Starbucks than it does when I make it at home using a Starbucks cokkemaker, Starbucks coffee beans, etc. Why does MY coffee taste better when I take it to Starbucks to drink it? Why does a taco seem to be "worth more" or "better" when served at a restaurant than when a larger, better quality taco can be purchased from the taco stand across the street? Its funny....most people do now see the scientific community as a social network. It is EXACTLY that. The only ones who were doing the real work in physics are those who are trying to advance it. Most everybody else just wants to make a name in it.
mzzz
Well Known GateFan
I would say something more but I'll just say I question your scientific knowledge overmind, most of your propositions (which lack scientific and analytical bases) stem from a personal bias against Einstein, all the new 'young new theories' which you seem to support have concepts of constants in them. You're not looking at the actual concepts and the actual science, just the names attached to the theories/propositions.
Direct question: Name a single constant thing THAT EXISTS in this universe. One. Not one that has been defined by a scientist, an OBSERVABLE one.
mzzz
Well Known GateFan
You're throwing terms out there that require definitions, but to me, it seems like you're defining existence of something to be observable. So when you die, since you can no longer observe the universe, it must no longer exist using your reasoning which I'm pretty sure you're against. I think we had this discussion before...
SciphonicStranger
Objects may be closer than they appear
When I die I hope you guys are still here arguing about this stuff. 
No, that is not at all what I am saying. I am saying that no constants exist in this universe. The very nature of it is variance. No constants exist on any level in the macro or micro universe. ONLY in mathematics and only in the antiquated equations of Einsteinian relativity are they allowed to be used liberally and even authoritatively. Constants do not exist in this universe, PERIOD. Those things which are not observable/measurable/detectable are no more real to me than ghosts or the gods of religions. I dont believe in them. I know the Universe continues after death because those who have come before me have recorded their lives for me to read. It is safe to assume that when I die that the Universe continues. The ancient ruins of civilizations that once existed here are here long after the people who created them and lived in them have died.
This isnt rocket science, mzzz.....I asked a simple question and you could not answer it. Its easy: CONSTANTS DO NOT EXIST IN THIS UNIVERSE.
Why is that so hard for you to see when its reality? The ONLY place where the fantasmical world of time travel, The Homer Simpson Equation (pick a name, pick a physics concept, you're done), the notion of "constants" and clean neat equations happens is in physics textbooks and coming from the mouths of indoctrinators posing as teachers. You say you question my scientific knowledge? Then why cant you prove me wrong when I make this statement:
NO CONSTANTS EXIST IN THIS UNIVERSE. No physical constants, no natural constants, no intellectual constants, no time constants....there is no level large or small, inner or outer that can show anyone a constant. FACT.
So, I am questioning your scientific knowledge if all you can do is to regurgitate what you are being taught and not questioning any of it. When you graduate, how will you apply what you have learned in physics? I learned that physics (as learned) could not tell me much about the real world. Physics attempts to explain what we see using mathematics. I think math is great at illustrating concepts, but in reality is is only a skeleton (and a fragile one at that). It is fleshed out by what we see in the observable universe...or not. When the math doesn't match the reality than the math is wrong. Plain and simple.
After you graduate, you will be doing whatever you want to be doing (KUDOS for making certain you have a complete education! :beckettu
, and you will find out subtleties and commonalities in things that cannot be described using mathematics. My main gripe with Einstein is his use of constants. And not just Einstein...anywhere there are constants referred to.
S
Stonelesscutter
Guest
You can bold, capitalize and colour your words as much as you like, that doesn't make them any more impressive.
The article that was linked to gave an explanation of what went wrong with measurements of a project. You go off and start raving about how constants are bad. Take another look at the article and try to comprehend what it says for a minute. It's fairly simple really.
Example:
Say you're walking alongside a road and you're holding a speedgun because you want to measure the speed of a passing car. The meter says 65mph. You say the car went 65mph. But you're wrong. Because you were walking say 3mph in the same direction, so in reality the car only went 62mph.
Though a little simplified this is pretty much a similar situation to the one described in the article. Now, was that so hard?
The article that was linked to gave an explanation of what went wrong with measurements of a project. You go off and start raving about how constants are bad. Take another look at the article and try to comprehend what it says for a minute. It's fairly simple really.
Example:
Say you're walking alongside a road and you're holding a speedgun because you want to measure the speed of a passing car. The meter says 65mph. You say the car went 65mph. But you're wrong. Because you were walking say 3mph in the same direction, so in reality the car only went 62mph.
Though a little simplified this is pretty much a similar situation to the one described in the article. Now, was that so hard?
When I die I hope you guys are still here arguing about this stuff.
I like mzzz! If he wasnt so brilliant, this discussion would not be any fun!