FTL travel here we come!

[Overmind One]

Where is the proof that constants don't exist?

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

There are no constants, and even Einstein knew it in the end. Here are two quotes directly from Albert Einstein:

Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."


Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

:icon_e_geek:

 

[mzzz]

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...

Maxwell's equations, gravitational lensing, VLBI, a whole lot more too long to mention.

You're just going off on tangents again since you can't prove your claim. You never attempt to do so.

There are no constants, and even Einstein knew it in the end. Here are two quotes directly from Albert Einstein:



:icon_e_geek:

Read the quotes again. He said an if-then statement in the first one. You're just seeing what you want to see. And the second quote has to do with a more general viewpoint on all of physics, the adoption of fields in physics, gravitational field, electric field, magnetic field, etc.

 

[Jim of WVa]

What happened to my posts?

 

[OMNI]

What happened to my posts?

they have been aproved.

 

[Overmind One]

Maxwell's equations, gravitational lensing, VLBI, a whole lot more too long to mention.

You're just going off on tangents again since you can't prove your claim. You never attempt to do so.



Read the quotes again. He said an if-then statement in the first one. You're just seeing what you want to see. And the second quote has to do with a more general viewpoint on all of physics, the adoption of fields in physics, gravitational field, electric field, magnetic field, etc.

What tangent?....THERE ARE NO PHYSICAL CONSTANTS. I have said it over and over and over and there is no "going off on tangents". Maxwell's equations do not prove the existence of a constant. Neither do the Lorentz transformations or any of that. They are all relativistic calculations which give approximations and nothing more. My point is proven by the fact that no constants exist in reality. ANYTHING can be "proven" using math if you simply make assumptions. Assume that the speed of light is constant, and you can create all sorts of proofs and you can formulate all sorts of equations.

Lets look at E=mc[SUP]2[/SUP]. The formula follows from the two assumptions that the speed of light is constant in any frame, and that the laws of physics hold in any inertial (ie unaccelerating) frame. AT BEST, Einstein's equation (actually a derivation) is only a theory. The speed of light cannot be proven to be constant, but it HAS been proven to be able to be slowed down and/or bent. If it can be bent or slowed down, then it cannot be constant. There is no proof in mathematics which can verify this equation.

Are you familiar with Nikolai Lobachevsky? Read up about him. He developed the first non-Euclidean geometry. He developed a geometry in which Euclid's Fifth Postulate was not true, and gave us a whole new hyperbolic geometry to use. Previously, mathematicians were all trying to deduce Euclid's Fifth Postulate using other axioms and they floundered. Today, the conformist physics community is stagnant because the fuzzy edges and variability of things that is our ACTUAL universe are not at all explained by flawed mathematics rife with constants which never change, with assumptions about constancy of speeds, lengths, movement.... It's ridiculous. So, I read and search and hope that somebody with vision comes along and takes physics in a different direction.

 

[Stonelesscutter]

So the lightspeed is not a constant but the fluctuations are so small they're pretty much immeasurable. How does that impact things?

 

[Overmind One]

So the lightspeed is not a constant but the fluctuations are so small they're pretty much immeasurable. How does that impact things?

A whole lot! Thing is, Einsteinian physics says that light has a constant speed and thats that. There is no room for adjustment. Once the "constant" is toppled, everything built upon it topples as well.

 

[Overmind 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.

That is the standard understanding. There are no mathematical or real-world proofs which support this. All of those assumptions are based in Einstein's constant. The maximums of measurement are based more in our understanding of how to measure than the thing we are measuring. You cannot see further than your eyes allow you to see, and that you cannot see does not mean that there is nothing to be seen. The example you used regarding the particle accelerator is a good example. You cannot use a particle accelerator to determine a universal constant. The accelerator ITSELF has limited capabilities, and the technology used to build it is insufficient. The fact that no constants exist is not disproven by any particle accelerator experiment. It is ILLOGICAL to assume that anything in this universe is constant, a fact which is demonstrated in the observable universe on all detectable levels even with technology. Nothing is constant.

The notion of a "constant" in physics is no different than a notion of an omnipotent deity in religion. One only has to believe in it for it to exist. Perfection is only theoretical. Only our ability to conceive of it makes it real.

 

[Bluce Ree]

That is the standard understanding. There are no mathematical or real-world proofs which support this. All of those assumptions are based in Einstein's constant. The maximums of measurement are based more in our understanding of how to measure than the thing we are measuring. You cannot see further than your eyes allow you to see, and that you cannot see does not mean that there is nothing to be seen. The example you used regarding the particle accelerator is a good example. You cannot use a particle accelerator to determine a universal constant. The accelerator ITSELF has limited capabilities, and the technology used to build it is insufficient. The fact that no constants exist is not disproven by any particle accelerator experiment. It is ILLOGICAL to assume that anything in this universe is constant, a fact which is demonstrated in the observable universe on all detectable levels even with technology. Nothing is constant.

The notion of a "constant" in physics is no different than a notion of an omnipotent deity in religion. One only has to believe in it for it to exist. Perfection is only theoretical. Only our ability to conceive of it makes it real.

Aren't tachyons faster than light? Granted, they're hypothetical subatomic particles, but doesn't the fact that physicists have postulated their existence negate the general acceptance of C?

 

[Overmind One]

Aren't tachyons faster than light? Granted, they're hypothetical subatomic particles, but doesn't the fact that physicists have postulated their existence negate the general acceptance of C?

YES, it does. But ever since Sommerfeld hypothesized tachyons, the established physics monolith says that tachyons are too unstable to exist. They say that causality violation with tachyons is impossible. Its that sort of madness that frustrates me about Einsteinian physics. Because his theories are so firmly entrenched in physics, his theories are taken as laws and anything that challenges them is dismissed or scrutinized to whatever end to nullify any apparent deviation from what is expected in Einsteinian physics.

 

[Bluce Ree]

YES, it does. But ever since Sommerfeld hypothesized tachyons, the established physics monolith says that tachyons are too unstable to exist. They say that causality violation with tachyons is impossible. Its that sort of madness that frustrates me about Einsteinian physics. Because his theories are so firmly entrenched in physics, his theories are taken as laws and anything that challenges them is dismissed or scrutinized to whatever end to nullify any apparent deviation from what is expected in Einsteinian physics.

If we throw out C then Einstein's theory of relativity breaks down and, by consequence, we preclude any possibility of time travel, which I believe is a load of hogwash. Time is nothing more than the perception of passing events, a referential measure. Even if we lose all our senses, we'd feel time passing by the changing of our thoughts. I don't believe it is a dimension that can be sped up, slowed down or traversed. So, the theory of matter approaching light speed experiencing time at a different rate is, IMO, absolute nonsense.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Seems I'm not alone:

http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm

 

[Overmind One]

If we throw out C then Einstein's theory of relativity breaks down and, by consequence, we preclude any possibility of time travel, which I believe is a load of hogwash. Time is nothing more than the perception of passing events. Even if we lose all our senses, we'd feel time passing by the changing of our thoughts. I don't believe it is a dimension that can be sped up, slowed down or traversed. So, the theory of matter approaching light speed experiencing time at a different rate is, IMO, absolute nonsense.

EXACTLY.

Its only because of the fixed, unchanging value of C that ridiculous events like time dilation/time travel can be theorized. Dump it and time travel becomes impossible (its impossible anyway). As you said, time is nothing more than a perception of passing events. Linear time is only experienced by living beings or entities which can percieve events AND REMEMBER THEM. The past, present and future are all existing in the same space-time at the same time. But these logical deductions are scoffed at by physics because they do not fit within the Einsteinian theories of relativity. All they can do is spout the same old stuff and repeat the same mantra of equations.

 

[Bluce Ree]

EXACTLY.

Its only because of the fixed, unchanging value of C that ridiculous events like time dilation/time travel can be theorized. Dump it and time travel becomes impossible (its impossible anyway). As you said, time is nothing more than a perception of passing events. Linear time is only experienced by living beings or entities which can percieve events AND REMEMBER THEM. The past, present and future are all existing in the same space-time at the same time. But these logical deductions are scoffed at by physics because they do not fit within the Einsteinian theories of relativity. All they can do is spout the same old stuff and repeat the same mantra of equations.

To be honest, I wish I could believe that Einstein was right about everything because him being wrong kills all hopes and dreams of time travel and its associated coolness.

 

[Overmind One]

To be honest, I wish I could believe that Einstein was right about everything because him being wrong kills all hopes and dreams of time travel and its associated coolness.

Well, the great part of it is that the upper end of energy transmission loses its lightspeed limit. . It would allow for tachyons and faster than light scenarios. Part of the special relativity is that mass increases as it approaches the speed of light, reaching infinity as lightspeed is reached. That is ridiculous to me, and we do not see this happening. Many scientists have been trying to prove that this DOES happen as predicted by Einstein, but none have done so conclusively. The experiments which purport to have proven it are using relativistic equations which to me is an oxymoron.

 

[Jim of WVa]

Aren't tachyons faster than light? Granted, they're hypothetical subatomic particles, but doesn't the fact that physicists have postulated their existence negate the general acceptance of C?

No, tachyons are always traveling faster than light. Relativity governs the dynamics and kinematics of slower than light traveling objects as their speed approaches the speed of light.

 

[Overmind One]

No, tachyons are always traveling faster than light. Relativity governs the dynamics and kinematics of slower than light traveling objects as their speed approaches the speed of light.

Why doesn't the general physics community acknowledge tachyons? BTW, I acknowledge your expertise in this subject. It hasnt gone ignored, even if I dont agree with Einsteinian physics. From what I can see, the acceptance of the existence of tachyons has been met with disdain.

 

[Jim of WVa]

Tachyons

Why doesn't the general physics community acknowledge tachyons? BTW, I acknowledge your expertise in this subject. It hasnt gone ignored, even if I dont agree with Einsteinian physics. From what I can see, the acceptance of the existence of tachyons has been met with disdain.

The general physics community doubts the existance of tachyons because they have never been observed. These two fellows think they know why tachyons do not exist:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...t-tachyons-might-be-impossible-after-all.html

This is a good introduction to the topic of tachyons, although the web site itself is kinda hard to read (might help to change the freaking colors):

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Tachyon.html

Apparently, tachyons are the advertised ingredient in many new age products:

http://www.skepdic.com/takionic.html

 

[Bluce Ree]

The general physics community doubts the existance of tachyons because they have never been observed. These two fellows think they know why tachyons do not exist:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...t-tachyons-might-be-impossible-after-all.html

This is a good introduction to the topic of tachyons, although the web site itself is kinda hard to read (might help to change the freaking colors):

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Tachyon.html

Apparently, tachyons are the advertised ingredient in many new age products:

http://www.skepdic.com/takionic.html

What's their position on exotic matter, which is an essential component to the existence of wormholes?

 

[Jim of WVa]

What's their position on exotic matter, which is an essential component to the existence of wormholes?

The exotic matter for wormhole production would have a negative energy density. The existence of this matter is speculative, maybe true or maybe not.