Jun 13 2008, 8:55 am
In response to Volte
|
|
Garthor
 |
Science is not about throwing out our entire understanding of the universe every couple decades and starting again with something radically different. As it goes now, we find some inconsistencies under very extreme conditions (as in, fractions of a second after the universe began), and we have a new model which makes basically the same macro-level predictions while also making accurate micro-level predictions. We're not about to say, "WHOOOOOOOOPS, we CAN travel faster than the speed of light!" because the implications involved in that would mean our entire model isn't even a close approximation of reality, and, well, it is.
|
Garthor wrote:
because the implications involved in that would mean our entire model isn't even a close approximation of reality, and, well, it is. Says who? Humanity, who already has limited knowledge of how everything works to begin with? Saying that there will never be a change great enough to completely change what we think we know is very ignorant. | |
Well, I disagree with that. Newton's gravitational theory was an extremely close approximation of gravity, but it turns out that the explanation wasn't completely correct. Special relativity (specifically the time dilation near massive objects) is an even closer approximation of gravity... who knows if it also turns out that it isn't completely correct?
| |
There is little reason to think that general relativity *and* FTL travel (in some form that does not break GR, as in the case of my example of the Mexican physicist's theory) can't co-exist.
Isn't GR still considered a 'theory' anyway? | |
The general trend has been for scientific discoveries to be more and more specific. No longer do people say, "Oh wait, turns out there's another huge planet in our solar system." Yes, new theories replace old theories, but those old theories were still almost entirely correct within the realm that they governed. IE: Newton's laws of gravitation were almost perfect for anything that isn't moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light.
Anybody can say, "DUR HUR WE COULD ALL BE WRONG AND ELEPHANTS FLY AND THE SKY IS PURPLE AND HEY IT'S A POSSIBILITY." It doesn't make someone ignorant for pointing out that, "yes, everything is possible, good job, now go away, your statements are irrelevant." | |
Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. That form of thinking is wrong, as a theory is the highest you can get. A law is something vastly different from a theory. Read here for why your thinking is wrong.
| |
Popisfizzy wrote:
The speed of light is constant. Not anymore, yes, in general, but its speed isn't always constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light and in case you don't trust wikipedia, http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99111&page=1 | |
yeah, like ABC News is less prone to error than anyone else. :p
I suspect they just copied that from other sources as a part of 'journalistic license'. | |
The instantaneous speed of light is always c, regardless of the situation. This includes passing through anything, or the situation you're talking about. They aren't measuring the instaneous speed of light for those situations.
| |
digitalmouse wrote:
yeah, like ABC News is less prone to error than anyone else. :p lol, true... Popisfizzy wrote: The instantaneous speed of light is always c, regardless of the situation. This includes passing through anything, or the situation you're talking about. They aren't measuring the instaneous speed of light for those situations. thats true, i remember now reading something about that. | |
I didn't read the other posts in this thread yet, but I just want to say there is no point in a car going light speed. First of all, you would not be able to navigate it, second of all, if you went a fraction of light speed you'd make it to anywhere on Earth in a matter of seconds.
| |
Also, you'd be defying the Theory of Relativity. Not to mention time itself, since there is no absolute time. Time is really just light relative to, well... everything.
But like Volte said, things change. | |
Time is a dimension. Light is a particle. There is no need to think about it, because time and light are two different things.
| |
Only the speed of light is closely related. Light itself is just as effect by relatity as everything else.
| |
But is there any particle that can move faster than c? If there is, than maybe faster-than-light travel could be possible.
| |