Speed of light

leeberttea

Deleted

Oxford, Illinois

#16

Jun 30, 2010 @ 20:30:59

@jonnythan Said

Superluminal speeds are theoretically impossible in a particle accelerator.

Ok, but that's the only man made thing I could think of that even approaches the speed of light (LHC).

0

Eastender

Deleted
Banned

, Falkland Islands (Islas Malv

#17

Jun 30, 2010 @ 20:34:19

There's a famous quote given in one of my textbooks, but it doesnt say who by. Its about quantum theory and says this...

"Bells's Theorem shows that although the world's phenomena seem strictly local, the reality beneath this phenomenal surface must be superluminal. The world's deep reality is maintained by an invisible quantum connection whose ubiquitous influence is unmediated, unmitigated and immediate."

0

KAMPA

Admiral Karl Donuts

Uhlan Bator, Mongolia

#18

Jun 30, 2010 @ 20:40:39

According to Dr. Michio Kaku, he claims it may be possible(some day)!

0

drman321

, Florida

#19

Jun 30, 2010 @ 20:55:32

The one thing we absolutely know for sure about physics today is that we absolutely have it wrong, but we are close.

There is no particular model of modern physics which works in all cases. The math breaks down when dealing with very large or very small systems. Hence all the eggheads drilling away at string theory, super string theory and other mind boggling aspects of post modern physics, including much of what goes on in the LHC.

So with that in mind, is it possible to exceed the speed of light? I suppose it could be. But it is a remote possibility given the laws of nature that we do know.

If it is possible it truly does scrap a lot of what we have laid out now in the "not perfect but pretty damn close" column of modern physics theories and laws.

Most of the laws and theories we know work 99.9999% of the time, if we can exceed the speed of light it turns a great deal of the math on its head and essentially would leave modern physics right back where it was 100 years ago.

0

Eastender

Deleted
Banned

, Falkland Islands (Islas Malv

#20

Jun 30, 2010 @ 20:59:00

@drman321 Said

The one thing we absolutely know for sure about physics today is that we absolutely have it wrong, but we are close.

There is no particular model of modern physics which works in all cases. The math breaks down when dealing with very large or very small systems. Hence all the eggheads drilling away at string theory, super string theory and other mind boggling aspects of post modern physics, including much of what goes on in the LHC.

So with that in mind, is it possible to exceed the speed of light? I suppose it could be. But it is a remote possibility given the laws of nature that we do know.

If it is possible it truly does scrap a lot of what we have laid out now in the "not perfect but pretty damn close" column of modern physics theories and laws.

Most of the laws and theories we know work 99.9999% of the time, if we can exceed the speed of light it turns a great deal of the math on its head and essentially would leave modern physics right back where it was 100 years ago.

Actually, that's all only the case coz scientists dont like the implications of quantum effects.

0

KAMPA

Admiral Karl Donuts

Uhlan Bator, Mongolia

#21

Jun 30, 2010 @ 21:03:38

@Eastender Said

There's a famous quote given in one of my textbooks, but it doesnt say who by. Its about quantum theory and says this...

"Bells's Theorem shows that although the world's phenomena seem strictly local, the reality beneath this phenomenal surface must be superluminal. The world's deep reality is maintained by an invisible quantum connection whose ubiquitous influence is unmediated, unmitigated and immediate."

Say that three times fast!

0

Eastender

Deleted
Banned

, Falkland Islands (Islas Malv

#22

Jun 30, 2010 @ 21:04:31

@KAMPA Said

Say that three times fast!

it took me 5 minutes to type it!

0

KAMPA

Admiral Karl Donuts

Uhlan Bator, Mongolia

#23

Jun 30, 2010 @ 21:05:42

I read it quickly though there is no retention!

0

Eastender

Deleted
Banned

, Falkland Islands (Islas Malv

#24

Jun 30, 2010 @ 21:08:23

@KAMPA Said

I read it quickly though there is no retention!

Its one of them things you have to really make yourself sit down and understand what it means, lol. I think I get basically what it means.

0

KAMPA

Admiral Karl Donuts

Uhlan Bator, Mongolia

#25

Jun 30, 2010 @ 21:11:11

OH! I understood it immediately but have forgotten every thing!

0

galastaray

honey bucket

Deleted

Honey Bucket, Reunion

#26

Jun 30, 2010 @ 21:31:49

@jonnythan Said

No, that's not true at all and displays an ignorance of basically all science to have ever been done since 1904.

Ah well.

0

johnzdoe

New York, Russia

#27

Sep 21, 2018 @ 18:41:28

A reply to this old post.
Einstein is wrong, he is clearly no genius.
Special Relativity is irrational, nonsensical, and illogical, with glaring errors from start to finish. No one can explain how its supposed to work without sounding like a raving idiot.

I think that covers it.

0

chaski

Stalker

Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,

#28

Sep 21, 2018 @ 19:14:13

@johnzdoe Said

A reply to this old post.
Einstein is wrong, he is clearly no genius.
Special Relativity is irrational, nonsensical, and illogical, with glaring errors from start to finish. No one can explain how its supposed to work without sounding like a raving idiot.

I think that covers it.

Ah... so you have actually read, studied and worked through the math. Interesting.

0

johnzdoe

New York, Russia

#29

Sep 21, 2018 @ 22:21:02

Chaski,
Yep, I did.
The math is useless, as math can be twisted like jelly to prove practically whatever you want.
Physics and rational arguments however are solid.

Please try to explain Einsteins light clock on a moving carriage, that is supposed to be the basis for time dilation, and I'll show you why its impossible.

0

chaski

Stalker

Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,

#30

Sep 21, 2018 @ 22:24:18

@johnzdoe Said

Physics and rational arguments however are solid.

Physics is nothing with out math. The math and be checked both in terms of the correctness of the formulas and as compared to observation. If it is flawed the theory the math falls apart, and is additionally not supported by observation.

It seems that you have confused "philosophy" with "physics".

0

Edited: September 21, 2018 @ 22:28

Similar Topics
	Forum	Topic	Last Post	Replies	Views
	Q & A	What happened to the neutrinos that traveled just under the speed of light?	Tue Apr 03, 2012 @ 18:18	11	1240
	Religion	Speed of Light in Holy Quran	Mon Oct 08, 2018 @ 16:53	10	2431
	Science	Speed of light Reducing	Mon Oct 19, 2009 @ 16:06	26	2445
	Science	speed of light	Fri Oct 12, 2018 @ 00:49	120	6488
	Physics	Speed of light?	Wed Feb 25, 2009 @ 12:27	261	15902

Science