This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Claim that the speed of light has been broken
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
the neutrinos may be traversing dimensions, taking short-cuts through space, which would give the appearance of travelling faster than the speed of light while not actually doing so.
So, perhaps we are sending small particles into another dimension? Could we find out anything about these other dimensions? Is there any way of telling if World of Warcraft is actually good there? Could they send us a copy of their quality game to replace our really crappy one?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Brian Cox brought up another possible explanation in
this interview
which I think would be very interesting if it turns out to be right and allows both Einstein to be correct and the results to be correct, the neutrinos may be traversing dimensions, taking short-cuts through space, which would give the appearance of travelling faster than the speed of light while not actually doing so. I think that'd be a far more interesting find.
Not sure that it's 'more interesting', necessarily, but it allows for the unlocking of a new field of research, as opposed to the rewriting of an existing one, which is always nice.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
So, perhaps we are sending small particles into another dimension? Could we find out anything about these other dimensions? Is there any way of telling if World of Warcraft is actually good there? Could they send us a copy of their quality game to replace our really crappy one?
I don't think other dimensions necessarily mean alternate realities.
So there is no hope for world of warcraft?
Post by
HoleofArt
I'm surprised that this hasn't been mentioned yet, but the cynic in me suggests that it's due to the high number of 'atheists' on the board that don't want to admit that their 'faith' in
certain theories held true
science
may have been misplaced :P
Less of that and more of the fact that I can only assume a handful of people on this forum truly understands the topic. I heard about this the day it happened, but I, along with others I'm assuming, didn't feel the need to share because there isn't a whole lot to say or discuss. It'd be like trying to jump in and discuss Advanced Calculus with Algebra 1 students.
What do you guys think? Error in the measurements, or could Einstein actually have been wrong?
He's just one man. An incredibly smart man, but still just a man. There was really no way he could have even known about neutrinos. Science and technology are both exponential growths, it only makes sense that new things like this comes to light (pun intended?). The fact that the theory held up for these last 100 years without being truly questioned is more astonishing than this potential discovery, imo.
However, I am personally leaning towards there being some error in the calculations or some other factor that is skewing the results. Exciting if otherwise, though.
Post by
Pwntiff
Foldspace.
I'm going to wait for the peer tests and reviews before investing too much thought into it.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
263972
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
166779
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Azazel
I'm just going to wait and see what they are going to do with this.
Post by
Squishalot
@ Berelain - you miss my point. My point is that the religious are often mocked simply for believing something to be true with little / no basis. The idea that the speed of light is the theoretical maximum speed of an object in the universe is something that is really only known by particle physicists and not by the vast majority of plebs; yet, the plebs will hold it to be true because they read about it in a book and have been taught it to be true. Just like evolution - it's a theory that has a lot going for it, but only if you accept the assumption chain associated with it.
If an experiment showed God to be false, I'm fairly certain that even the religious would need to pause and take stock. As an observer who is not religious, the point I was trying to make with that jibe is that the religious are mocked simply for believing in something they've read, when the non-religious fall prey to the same trap. To suggest that the religious are unable to adapt to modern discoveries (and to say that scientists do by definition) is to unduly discount the evolution of the modern church and to overstate scientists' willingness to believe in the evidence put before them.
Post by
166779
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
Greatest irony so far: this thread is probably most interesting to philosophers, generally regarded as dangerous and/or useless to the religious and the scientist alike!
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Last night, my boyfriend started reading the Wowhead forums- specifically Off-Topic ones. I was playing EQ2, minding my own business, when he asks me, "So this one mod- Squish-something- he's a troll?" And I had no idea what he could be talking about. I told him that I'd gotten into a lot of debates with Squish, and usualy even if we didn't agree with him, he had pretty well-thought out arguments.
And then I came here...did he get hacked?
Anyway- The reason scientific method is successful is that the basic tenants are to always prove theories to the best of your ability, and draw conclusions based on observable results. They also call their conclusions theories, and only old them to be true until someone else proves that they are not. There are no absolutes- there are only theories based on observable data, that can change when new data is added to the equation.
Science is not a religion- it asks you to take noting on faith, and demands that you challenge its assertions. Science is looking at the world around you, trying to detect patterns, and then trying to set up situations to test that things will occus along these patterns. Einstein would be happy that we'd developed the technology to possible accelerate particles beyone the speed of light, and he's be the first one looking at the new data, and trying to come up with a new theory to encompass all of the results past and present.
I can't think of what to tell someone who believes that this new finding somehow invalidates science. Obviously, you're right of course. Science has never actually proved useful or granted knowledge that was practical. We never used our theories about physics to send a ship to the moon and allow it to return. We never learned enough about the interactions of certain chemicals with our cells and biology to allow us to treat or cure illnesses. We never were able to take theories about the energy output of the sun, and use it to power our homes. We never understood the way in which electricity flows and the reactions it has with certain substances well enough to create any kind of super tool that would allow us to connect to each other and share information, re-produce images, transmit sounds, etc. Obviously, science has done none of that, and so any proof that previous theories have, according to the scientific method, been proved to be not entirely accurate should be enough for us to burn our books, and disbelieve our computers out of existance.
If you want certainty, something that will never chance regardless of what new information arises, adopt a faith, join a hardcore political party or become a philosophy major. If you want a systematic approach to finding the most likely explainations for things, based on what you can see, taste, smell, feel and measure, then you have to accept that the findings are not static and change at the whim of new data. That's called science.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.