Tonight on 7mate.

[mill]

The universe.

According to the laws of physics, we can never travel faster then the speed of light - or can we? Learn all about light speed, the ultimate constant in the universe.

Might be worth watching :thumbsup:

[renormalised]

Which ones are they???. Even SR doesn't preclude objects travelling faster than light. That's the BIG misinterpretation of what Einstein said and a mistake that has been perpetrated and spread by most physicists since his time. What Einstein said, is that it is impossible for any material object to travel through space at the speed of light. The energy requirements rise asymptotically until they become infinite. However, there are solution to the equations in SR which allow for objects to always be travelling faster than light. However, these objects cannot slow down to light speed because it takes infinite energy to slow them down to this speed. In order to travel faster, you reduce the amount of energy they have. At zero energy, they travel at infinite velocity (theoretically).

As interesting as the show will be, it'll be probably pushing the usual line.

[mill]

Oh please stop it, i am just letting know that a tv show comes on the box tonight.
Why don't you just stay in the science part of the forum so you don't force us your beliefs up our (you know where).
And let us make up our own minds.

[renormalised]

All I was doing there is spelling out something which is the actual truth. It has nothing to do with what I believe or don't believe. You and anyone else can make up their minds on whatever you want to believe about it. If you want to get the most out of a show, then it won't hurt to do some homework and learn a little about the background behind it before you watch it. That way you're going to be better able to appreciate what you're watching. At least then you won't come away with a false impression what's real or not.

The statement in the show promo is incorrect. All I was doing is pointing this out and explaining why.

But don't get shirty with me or anyone else because we want to point something out. I'll post where and when I like.

[TrevorW]

IMO science as we know it determines the limitations on what is capable within the realms of space and time, within an open mind there are no limitations as to what may be acheivable.

There are so many things in our history where the word impossible has been applied by scientists but with the passing of time these things have been found to be possible.

Through imagination and believing that all things are possible, this is how man has progressed as far as we have for better or worse.

The Wright Brothers made their inaugral flight of 120 feet in the Kitty Hawk December 17 1903

66 years later man set foot on the moon.


:astron::question::einstein::anaut: :ship1::thumbsup:

[rainwatcher]

Why is it that in every argument about breaking the speed of light so little attention is addressed to causality. The simpler old tried and worn out arguments are trotted out, usually with a mention of how we, loosely speaking, ridiculed Copernicus and of course the old stand by Galileo, and thus 'anything is possible'. I believe the arguments are reduced to base level by so call science reporters who have not served their dues, do not do their homework and put all sorts of infantile, poorly thought out, and generally poorly sub edited copy. Yes, in the serious science journals we get the facts presented, generally very dry and hard to digest, but the story that emanates from these facts take years to develop and invariably is accompanied by confidence and error levels. In the meanwhile we have to put up with the BBQ chat of “why is the speed of light so strict, after all look what we did to Galileo”…. “Yeah right you are Wayne, want another beer.”
:shrug:

[Astroman]

Thanks for the heads up Martin :thumbsup:

[mill]

Thanks Andrew :)

[Astroman]

No Problem, but I think I was a little Late :D

[KenGee]

yep as MR Adams told us about the little known fact that humans can fly. That's right, it'sjust that people think we can't fly that's stops us from doing it more often.

If you want to fly, all you have to do is throw yourself at the ground and then don't hit the ground. The best way to do this is to arrange for something very interesting to happen that makes you forget about gravity and the fact that your about to hit the ground. Maybe get a friend to shout an amazing fact out, as you begin your decent.

Try it and let us know how you go.

[renormalised]

Problem being, Peter, is that despite all the theory, all the prognostication and "blackboard"/"back of napkin" calculations that has been done, the idea that causality violations occur once you exceed the speed of light has never been experimentally verified. None of it has been. Simply because they don't have the technology to do so. They've never tried to devise a way of accelerating particles up to light speed and then past it. So, whilst they believe (on a theoretical basis) that travelling faster than light will allow you to travel back in time and do all the nasty stuff they've dreamed up (all those paradoxes they like to trot out), it's never been tested. There have been some anomalous detections of particle they think maybe (emphasis on the maybe part) tachyons, they're not even sure if they've actually detected anything in these situations.

As a matter of fact, not much of any of the theories to do with causality, FTL travel or anything to do with time travel etc etc have been verified experimentally. Even the theory isn't as written in stone as many physicists would like you to believe. As Carl Sagan said "Any extraordinary claim requires equally extraordinary evidence"....until any theory can be experimentally verified it's just qualified speculation.

Like Miguel Alcubierre's "Warp Drive"....it may take the insanely huge amount of energy that many scientist "believe" it will take to create the warp. But until they even try to see what happens when you manipulate spacetime (with whatever they find that can do so), all it will be is just theory/speculation. It may not need that much energy, we really don't know.

I know what you're saying about many of these "science shows". They do tend to gloss over parts of theory that do need to be addressed in order to inform those watching these shows of all the important aspects of these theories, and that's a pity. It means those watching the shows don't get all the information and are therefore misinformed.

Ultimately though, those making these shows aren't trained scientists and sensationalism sells shows more than droll and dry theory/facts :)

[ballaratdragons]

What a Fun General Chat thread this is :lol:

[renormalised]

FGC....good acronym:)

[bartman]

FGC(omment) on the FGC acronym !:thumbsup:

[TrevorW]

Come on lets not all get touchy feely I might have to give someone a big hug and kiss :P:D

and what am I doing up this late, well it's clear in Perth tonight :thumbsup:

[rainwatcher]

Cheers Carl, of course your comments about experimental proof are correct and Sagan one of my heroes , although a little (lot ?) nutty - he believed in the Drake equation !, comments that "Any extraordinary claim requires equally extraordinary evidence" is correct
However at a very base level I for one have a problem in believeing that any particle can arrive anywhere before its left in its own reference frame. Simply because we measure that as occuring clearly indicates that in true quantum theory style we have impacted the experiment and are no longer observers.
What needs to be explained is why our frame of reference may and i repeat may, since all experiments to date that show this phenomena have all had peer review show an error in calculation or assumptiom, show particles traveling faster than light.
It is fashionable to say the jury is still out on this one, i do not accept that. In my view the evidence has not even been presented, and i will stick with Sagan (and you) and say show me the "equally extraordinary evidence".
In the meanwhile we will all have a bit of fun trying to discuss and imagine that which we can not imagine.:)