FTL travel here we come!

[Stonelesscutter]

Math can never be wrong.

 

[Overmind One]

LOL....

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?

We arent talking about detectors being held whilst moving. We arent talking about vehicle based detectors or any movement of the detectors OTHER THAN "relativistic" movement. Here is the exact paragraph:

[h=3]http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php

A Satellite's Perspective[/h] To understand how relativity altered the neutrino experiment, it helps to pretend that we're hanging out on one of those GPS satellites, watching the Earth go by underneath you. Remember, from the reference frame of someone on the satellite, we're not moving, but the Earth is. As the neutrino experiment goes by, we start timing one of the neutrinos as it exits the source in Switzerland. Meanwhile, the detector in Italy is moving just as fast as the rest of the Earth, and from our perspective it's moving towards the source. This means that the neutrino will have a slightly shorter distance to travel than it would if the experiment were stationary. We stop timing the neutrino when it arrives in Italy, and calculate that it moves at a speed that's comfortably below the speed of light.

Do you understand what they are saying in that sentence? They are saying that relativity accounts for the 60 nanosecond variance. Then why not simply send the neutrinos THROUGH the crust to its detector? Why is Einsteinian physics creating so many stillborn discoveries? Funny, the source of this article is from a Syfy owned website.

 

[Overmind One]

Math can never be wrong.

 

[Stonelesscutter]

We arent talking about detectors being held whilst moving. We arent talking about vehicle based detectors or any movement of the detectors OTHER THAN "relativistic" movement. Here is the exact paragraph:



Do you understand what they are saying in that sentence? They are saying that relativity accounts for the 60 nanosecond variance. Then why not simply send the neutrinos THROUGH the crust to its detector? Why is Einsteinian physics creating so many stillborn discoveries? Funny, the source of this article is from a Syfy owned website.

Oh I think I'm understanding it better than you are.

The satellite which is used for measuring the departure and arrival time of the neutrinos as their send from Switzerland to Italy is not in geosynchronous orbit. It's moving. That means that as the signal from the departure point travels to the satellite, the satellite is not at the same spot as when the satellite receives the signal from the arrival point. The satellite had gotten closer which caused the signal to arrive quicker than they were expecting it to. Which means that when they compared the results the time measurements from departure to arrival were shorter than they should have been. Which accounts for the false conclusion that the neutrinos were travelling faster than light.

Comprendé?

 

[Stonelesscutter]

Math is a principle constructed by humanity based on pure logic. If you can't see that then your avatar is a joke.

 

[Overmind One]

Math is a principle constructed by humanity based on pure logic. If you can't see that then your avatar is a joke.

Humanity is a group of primates. The Universe created everything, not Humanity, and my avatar is of a logical ALIEN, not a human. Math is not a god-language. Math is only correct when it is correct (sounds simple enough). Math is only a tool.

 

[Overmind One]

Oh I think I'm understanding it better than you are.

The satellite which is used for measuring the departure and arrival time of the neutrinos as their send from Switzerland to Italy is not in geosynchronous orbit. It's moving. That means that as the signal from the departure point travels to the satellite, the satellite is not at the same spot as when the satellite receives the signal from the arrival point. The satellite had gotten closer which caused the signal to arrive quicker than they were expecting it to. Which means that when they compared the results the time measurements from departure to arrival were shorter than they should have been. Which accounts for the false conclusion that the neutrinos were travelling faster than light.

Comprendé?

TBH, it makes sense that GPS satellites do not stay in a single spot. So, why would any such experiment which was meant to determine the speeds down to nanoseconds use ANY satellites in the experiment? Within the mainstream physics community is a monolithic group who think of Einstein as the Ghandi/Jesus/God of physics and that his writings are LAWS of physics. They are not. Proof:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44968467/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Three weeks ago, a group of Italian scientists announced that they had measured objects moving faster than light, violating the fundamental laws of physics. Since then, their work has been met by a barrage of criticism. Physicists claim to have found flaws in the group's method of recording the speed of the neutrinos, and they say that correcting for these flaws slows the neutrinos to less astonishing speeds.

The fundamental laws of physics do not preclude faster than light particles/waves/energy. Only Einsteinian physics does. Since when did the limit on lightspeed become a "fundamental law of physics"? Look it up. Then look at Einstein's work (brilliant). Thing is, what he did that no others had done before him was to declare that the speed of light was constant. So, it will not be neutrinos traveling faster than light that topples the monolith. Not this year. But its coming...it will become easier to do once the devices used to measure things have improved.

 

[Jim of WVa]

an observable universal constant

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.

The maximum speed by which information or matter can be transmitted in the universe is a constant, c. This is limit is confirmed, but not proven, in particle accelerators where more and more energy is required to accelerate the particles. The velocity of the particles approaches the maximum speed by which information or matter can be sent as the required kinetic energy of the particles approaches infinity.

 

[Jim of WVa]

Luminiferous Aether

...Thing is, what [Einstein] did that no others had done before him was to declare that the speed of light was constant...

No, the idea that the speed of light was a constant regardless of the motion of the source is part and parcel of the theory of luminiferous aether. Luminiferous aether was originated by Christiaan Huygens to give light a medium for transmission. The idea of ether was improved upon by Lorentz and Poincaré in the 1890's with developments that foreshadowed special relativity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Poincaré

It should be noted that Star Trek uses the concept of Luminiferous Aether whenever the captain calls for an absolute stop. This happened quite frequently in ST: TNG.

 

[Jim of WVa]

This is an interesting page on the criticism of relativity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_relativity_theory

 

[Stonelesscutter]

Humanity is a group of primates. The Universe created everything, not Humanity, and my avatar is of a logical ALIEN, not a human. Math is not a god-language. Math is only correct when it is correct (sounds simple enough). Math is only a tool.

Math is a concept developed by humans to understand certain things. It is something separate from physics. Although physics usually require lots of math for humans to understand it, the math is not a part of the universe. Math is a tool developed by man just as a sharp rock on a stick was a tool developed by man.
Math itself can never be incorrect because it is based on solid principles that are undeniably true. A person can be incorrect because he/she didn't use the tool of math the right way. It's similar to the fact that computers never do anything they're not supposed to. It's the people who gave the computer the instructions to follow that made the computer act like it did.

 

[Stonelesscutter]

TBH, it makes sense that GPS satellites do not stay in a single spot. So, why would any such experiment which was meant to determine the speeds down to nanoseconds use ANY satellites in the experiment? Within the mainstream physics community is a monolithic group who think of Einstein as the Ghandi/Jesus/God of physics and that his writings are LAWS of physics. They are not. Proof:



The fundamental laws of physics do not preclude faster than light particles/waves/energy. Only Einsteinian physics does. Since when did the limit on lightspeed become a "fundamental law of physics"? Look it up. Then look at Einstein's work (brilliant). Thing is, what he did that no others had done before him was to declare that the speed of light was constant. So, it will not be neutrinos traveling faster than light that topples the monolith. Not this year. But its coming...it will become easier to do once the devices used to measure things have improved.

The thing about physics is that there aren't really laws. In that respect it is very different from math. There are only concepts that tend to exist/behave in a certain way. These concepts are called laws because it generally appears that things are always the way as they describe it. The laws are taken to be true until they are proven to be wrong.

The current understanding of the universe and it's behaviours is rather impressive compared to that of caveman from 10000 BC. Still there seems to be plenty of room for improvement. I'm sure there's people at the forefront of physics today who would be laughed at by people living a few hundred years from now if they proclaimed their thoughts then.

Even so, "laws" of physics can be pretty useful even if they're not completely accurate. In time improvements on measurements and calculations will make for more accurate formulas. Some people say laws are meant to be broken. It's because of the appeal of that that people even imagine about things like defying gravity and instant transportation from one place to another. But after every "breakthrough" a new law will be formed. Coz people also like laws. Otherwise they'd have none to break.

 

[Overmind One]

The thing about physics is that there aren't really laws. In that respect it is very different from math. There are only concepts that tend to exist/behave in a certain way. These concepts are called laws because it generally appears that things are always the way as they describe it. The laws are taken to be true until they are proven to be wrong.

The current understanding of the universe and it's behaviours is rather impressive compared to that of caveman from 10000 BC. Still there seems to be plenty of room for improvement. I'm sure there's people at the forefront of physics today who would be laughed at by people living a few hundred years from now if they proclaimed their thoughts then.

Even so, "laws" of physics can be pretty useful even if they're not completely accurate. In time improvements on measurements and calculations will make for more accurate formulas. Some people say laws are meant to be broken. It's because of the appeal of that that people even imagine about things like defying gravity and instant transportation from one place to another. But after every "breakthrough" a new law will be formed. Coz people also like laws. Otherwise they'd have none to break.

I can live with that. I just cant help but wonder what is being missed by the physics community staying so rigidly between the lines of established methodology. I dont believe that particle accelerators which destroy particles can tell us much about the structure of the particles, much less their interaction with other particles. Its just the WAY things are being done that irks me. As you said, math is only a tool. To me, a scientist who uses only math to describe things is only half a scientist. How would you use math to describe a flower? Ask a physicist who has studied Einstein and he will be befuddled. Ask an artist and he might render the flower using 3D models we can see. Both methods use math at the core, but which conveys the best message? The artists in physics have all been ignored in favor of conformists. Einstein was the last...who is the next?

 

[Bluce Ree]

[...]The current understanding of the universe and it's behaviours is rather impressive compared to that of caveman from 10000 BC.[...]

Geez, tell me about it. They couldn't even figure out that they needed to be *inside* a spacecraft and not on top of it exposed to the harsh environment of space.




So many brave souls lost due to ignorance.

 

[Stonelesscutter]

I can live with that. I just cant help but wonder what is being missed by the physics community staying so rigidly between the lines of established methodology. I dont believe that particle accelerators which destroy particles can tell us much about the structure of the particles, much less their interaction with other particles. Its just the WAY things are being done that irks me. As you said, math is only a tool. To me, a scientist who uses only math to describe things is only half a scientist. How would you use math to describe a flower? Ask a physicist who has studied Einstein and he will be befuddled. Ask an artist and he might render the flower using 3D models we can see. Both methods use math at the core, but which conveys the best message? The artists in physics have all been ignored in favor of conformists. Einstein was the last...who is the next?

Aaahh. So you admit that Einstein was an artist. He was a great artist indeed. A visionary who saw things in a way that no-one else could. Certainly not at his time and probably not even now. Even though people can understand his formulas they still can't really envision the concepts quite like he could.

Most science isn't based on math at all. Consider chemistry for instance. We consider that a science because it encompasses a great collection of knowlegde of certain things that had to be discovered/acquired by many individuals over a great period of time. Ofcourse when you go very deep into the matter it starts to blend more and more with physics. Even in physics math isn't at the base of the science. New theories usually start by a notion of a concept. Then after extensively researching the concept math is often used to describe it as accurately as possible or to make it comprehensible.

 

[mzzz]

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.

^That's where you made observability a sufficient condition (from logic) in your reply below. You used question begging ideas/concepts in an attempt to argue for your claim because you're constantly trying to detract from giving analytical science and math to back up your claim.

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! ), 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.

If you really studied even some physics, you'd know even change in behaviour can be made into a constant. Constants account for consistent change in certain behaviours, the variance you're talking about.

Again quit attacking non-relevant things. Constants do exist in the universe. The universe has a certain order which can be modeled. You just don't like the einstonian model. All the scientific theories we have are models for understanding the order we have in the universe. Sure the model can change and be improved upon or even dismissed sometimes. But to dismiss constants is to dismiss the very notion that the universe has order.

So again, please make a case for your claim. But I don't think you can because you yourself said your claim is nothing but a belief in that first paragraph in the second quote. In other words, it is not scientific, it's more a personal opinion/belief like people have with musical preference, life philosophy, religion, etc.

So please make a rational/logical case for your claim that doesn't stem from a personal bias, attacking me personally, attacking textbooks, mentioning Einstein's name or any name for that matter (you can mention the concepts, sure), any irrelevant things or diversionary tactics that have nothing to do with backing up your claim in a scientific/analytical method.

Here's an example of how someone backs up his claims, going to use Newton's Principia:

http://www.archive.org/stream/newtonspmathema00newtrich#page/n91/mode/2up

Starts on page 78.

He lays down definitions he will use and makes a light case for each of them. Then he uses deductive reasoning to show how they come together and then presents his three laws that seems to formulate from the deductive reasoning. Then he shows further implications of those laws in the form of corollaries.

He doesn't bring in his personal biases against certain names, textbooks, other irrelevant crap that has nothing to do with backing up his claims, just analytical science and math. So make a case like that, something independent of other people's beliefs and knowledge, something that stems from rationality, analytical science, and analytical math. But I don't think you can and your claim is nothing more than a personal opinion/belief.

 

[Overmind One]

^That's where you made observability a sufficient condition (from logic) in your reply below. You used question begging ideas/concepts in an attempt to argue for your claim because you're constantly trying to detract from giving analytical science and math to back up your claim.



If you really studied even some physics, you'd know even change in behaviour can be made into a constant. Constants account for consistent change in certain behaviours, the variance you're talking about.

Again quit attacking non-relevant things. Constants do exist in the universe. The universe has a certain order which can be modeled. You just don't like the einstonian model. All the scientific theories we have are models for understanding the order we have in the universe. Sure the model can change and be improved upon or even dismissed sometimes. But to dismiss constants is to dismiss the very notion that the universe has order.

So again, please make a case for your claim. But I don't think you can because you yourself said your claim is nothing but a belief in that first paragraph in the second quote. In other words, it is not scientific, it's more a personal opinion/belief like people have with musical preference, life philosophy, religion, etc.

So please make a rational/logical case for your claim that doesn't stem from a personal bias, attacking me personally, attacking textbooks, mentioning Einstein's name or any name for that matter (you can mention the concepts, sure), any irrelevant things or diversionary tactics that have nothing to do with backing up your claim in a scientific/analytical method.

Here's an example of how someone backs up his claims, going to use Newton's Principia:

http://www.archive.org/stream/newtonspmathema00newtrich#page/n91/mode/2up

Starts on page 78.

He lays down definitions he will use and makes a light case for each of them. Then he uses deductive reasoning to show how they come together and then presents his three laws that seems to formulate from the deductive reasoning. Then he shows further implications of those laws in the form of corollaries.

He doesn't bring in his personal biases against certain names, textbooks, other irrelevant crap that has nothing to do with backing up his claims, just analytical science and math. So make a case like that, something independent of other people's beliefs and knowledge, something that stems from rationality, analytical science, and analytical math. But I don't think you can and your claim is nothing more than a personal opinion/belief.

So we are back at this again? I am willing to concede that the experiment performed with the neutrinos may have been flawed, but I dont need to give one iota in the statement that no constants exist in this universe because they simply do not. There is nothing you can name that exists which is constant. Nothing on the macro or micro level, not in the biological or inert forms of matter, not even in energy. The ONLY place where a constant can exist is in mathematics and nowhere else. No human at any time and no science or mathematical equation can make a constant exist where there isnt one. THAT is why I am so adamantly against the conformist Einstienian student of physics. And to state it flatly, I did indeed study physics in college. It was my minor.

So please make a rational/logical case for your claim that doesn't stem from a personal bias, attacking me personally, attacking textbooks, mentioning Einstein's name or any name for that matter (you can mention the concepts, sure), any irrelevant things or diversionary tactics that have nothing to do with backing up your claim in a scientific/analytical method.

How can I begin to talk to somebody about physics outside of the Einsteinian models and the established dogma if they insist on sticking to that dogma without acknowledging the truth of things without using the arguments they have been taught to believe? You are a student and you arent practicing physics anywhere or using any of this math you keep trying to steer me towards. You are a student learning from somebody else and you are responding with the information you have been fed by somebody else. Einstein never did that...he was the VISIONARY. He could see, but everybody else is just a follower at the moment.

CONSTANTS DO NOT EXIST IN REALITY. You cannot provide a single example on any level. So, why should I even consider any math which uses constants as being remotely able to describe this dynamic universe which has none? To me, the followers of standard physics which follow the mathematical models established by Einstein are to physics as parishioners are to churches and to religions. Blind faith because there are so many doing the same thing. Just because there are so many doing the same thing does not mean they are right. Apple iPhone buyers declare they have the best phones because Apple told them so. They are dead wrong, period. Its the same thing here. What value is spewing a bunch of math and quoting other physicists when seeking a PERSONAL understanding of the science? Do you read any physics journals for pleasure? I do.

My RATIONAL arguments begin with correcting the fundamental flaw of Einsteinian physics...the non-existence of physical constants. You keep saying there are constants and can provide no proof for it whatsoever. I asked you this question.

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.

Why cant you answer it?

 

[mzzz]

Again with the non-relevant things.

So your method of backing for your claim is essentially provide a counterexample? That's not a valid method, I could make a claim that there exists an alien named Bob out there in the universe and since you can't prove me otherwise, I must be right. Not a valid method.

The proof for many constants is all there for you to see. Einstein didn't derive C, he used it for his model. C has been experimentally verified many times over. They take data from observations and derive a constant that rises from the data analysis and mathematical models.

 

[Overmind One]

Again with the non-relevant things.

So your method of backing for your claim is essentially provide a counterexample? That's not a valid method, I could make a claim that there exists an alien named Bob out there in the universe and since you can't prove me otherwise, I must be right. Not a valid method.

The proof for many constants is all there for you to see. Einstein didn't derive C, he used it for his model. C has been experimentally verified many times over. They take data from observations and derive a constant that rises from the data analysis and mathematical models.

Please provide examples of the bolded.

The reality is that physical constants are nothing more than mathematical conveniences created to make things easier. Even vaunted scientists like Stephen Hawking are actually no more than followers of Einstein's ideas. Einstein is the reason that there is a value now placed on the speed of light. He is the reason constants are used in physics, when they do not actually exist in the real world. Like religion created their perfect gods, Physics created the perfect entity...the constant. CONSTANTS DO NOT EXIST. Unless of course you have faith...

 

[Stonelesscutter]

Where is the proof that constants don't exist?

If constants don't exist, does that also mean Nessy doesn't exist?