forum Politics and Society ›› UFO's and shit.. ›› new reply Post Reply
Peter SteeleyDan
HatesMostThings
19,190 Posts
M/NA


offline  mobile reply   (1)
November 24 2011 10:36 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: mrdtb123

Space

LEATHERFACE
Hail Caesar
3,756 Posts
34/M/NC


offline  mobile reply   (7)
November 25 2011 9:48 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
I find it interesting how we use our concept of physics to determine what is possible and what is not. Space is big, and contains a lot of crazy shit, much of which we're probably wrong about in our assertions.
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,526 Posts
60/M/MA


offline   (9)
November 25 2011 11:23 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: LEATHERFACE

I find it interesting how we use our concept of physics to determine what is possible and what is not. Space is big, and contains a lot of crazy shit, much of which we're probably wrong about in our assertions.



Por Ejemplo

If the whole faster than light thing turns out to be true... whole fucking new ball of wax in physics. I personally hope it turns out to be true, as that would be such a huge revelation in physics.
LEATHERFACE
Hail Caesar
3,756 Posts
34/M/NC


offline  mobile reply   (7)
November 25 2011 12:44 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: crunkmoose

Originally posted by: LEATHERFACE

I find it interesting how we use our concept of physics to determine what is possible and what is not. Space is big, and contains a lot of crazy shit, much of which we're probably wrong about in our assertions.




Por Ejemplo

If the whole faster than light thing turns out to be true... whole fucking new ball of wax in physics. I personally hope it turns out to be true, as that would be such a huge revelation in physics.



^exactly what I was referring to. Whenever it comes to modern physics, especially astrophysics, we as a species are really just coming out of the starting gate. As for traveling at the speed of light, I view that as a matter of sheer technological advancement. As stated in the beginning of this thread, if you burn a newspaper then you simply can't put it back together. However, if one were able to map the entire atomic structure of the newspaper before burning it, then, with the proper technology, you actually could reassemble it. Maybe. Light is a form of sending and receiving information, so consider the following hypothetical scenario:

Man makes it to mars and sets up a small colony, but the costs of shuttling settlers in are astronomical (no pun intended). So, an in-vitro clinic supplied with stem cells and whatnot gets set up. People on earth are scanned and have their entire DNA sequence mapped, then that information is sent to Mars at the speed of light. The DNA is replicated in a lab and, eventually, YOU end up having traveled at the speed of light. Sounds like a batshit idea, but it's one I entertain. All living beings are composed of energy and information, so theoretically we aren't much different from light to begin with.
Rats in the walls
crush, kill, destr
1,167 Posts
33/M/NY


offline   (1)
November 25 2011 1:33 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
^^Definitely cool news about the Cern faster-than-light experiments, but remember, even if they turn out to be true - and that is being questioned by as many researchers at the same facility - but even then, we are talking about subatomic particles being artificially accelerated; anything larger than an atom, let alone a molecule or an object, most of even the scientists behind the Cern experiments would expect to be disintegrated. Still super cool though, and very promising, and who knows, there could be laws of physics we are incapable of comprehending that allow for it.

^And I like the DNA/clone printer idea, too, that's pretty neat. But memory is some pretty tricky random/non-random electrochemical composition painted all over your brain, so reproducing it would be a pretty formidable task.

Anyway, here's the latest on the Cern project:





21 November 2011 BBC News

Faster-than-light neutrino result queried

Subatomic particles called neutrinos cannot move faster than the speed of light, according to a new report.

The findings challenge a result reported in September that, if true, would undermine a century of physics.

The team at the INFN-Gran Sasso laboratory in Italy said they had measured faster-than-light speeds in neutrinos sent from Cern, 730km away.

Now a different team at the same lab reports findings that, they say, cast doubt on that surprising result.

The Icarus team at the Icarus experiment says that because the neutrinos sent from Cern do not appear to lose energy on their journey, they must not have exceeded the speed of light along the way.

The idea that nothing can move faster than the speed of light is a central tenet in modern physics, forming among many other things a critical part of Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity.

Critics have suggested from the start that the experiment by the Opera collaboration, who published the first striking results, must be flawed in some way.

One of the first objections to the experiment to be formally published appeared just five weeks later in the journal Physical Review Letters, co-authored by Nobel prize-winning physicist Sheldon Glashow.

Prof Glashow and his co-author Andrew Cohen argued that particles moving faster than light should emit further particles as they travel - in the process losing energy until they slow down to light-speed.

The Icarus team already had measurements of the spread of energies in neutrinos, detected in their underground instruments at Gran Sasso.





They showed in a paper again on the Arxiv repository that the neutrino energies they measure are consistent with slower-than-light-speed travel.

With the exception of Prof Glashow's theoretical paper, none of the results by the Opera or the Icarus team has been reviewed by the scientific community and formally published.

But the momentous nature of the finding has sparked a flurry of papers and ideas to challenge or support the idea that particles can travel faster than the speed of light.

It is clear the issue is unlikely to be conclusively resolved until other experiments around the world undertake similar measurements.

The Borexino experiment, also at Gran Sasso, the Minos experiment in the US and Japan's T2K facility are all expected to publish their results of similar neutrino experiments in the coming months.
Tim E. Husk
slavar som djur
19,110 Posts
52/M/NA


offline   (1)
November 25 2011 4:17 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: LEATHERFACE

I find it interesting how we use our concept of physics to determine what is possible and what is not.



Care to explain further? I understand what you are saying, but I can't quite believe that you are saying it.
LEATHERFACE
Hail Caesar
3,756 Posts
34/M/NC


offline  mobile reply   (7)
November 25 2011 4:47 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: barbarossa

Originally posted by: LEATHERFACE

I find it interesting how we use our concept of physics to determine what is possible and what is not.




Care to explain further? I understand what you are saying, but I can't quite believe that you are saying it.



Could you possibly rephrase? To simply "explain further" would be a rather daunting task to clearly convey what I was getting at.
Tim E. Husk
slavar som djur
19,110 Posts
52/M/NA


offline   (1)
November 26 2011 11:35 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
Let's start with what you mean by "our concept of physics." It sounds dismissive in a way that lacks understanding of how science and measurement work.
LEATHERFACE
Hail Caesar
3,756 Posts
34/M/NC


offline  mobile reply   (7)
November 26 2011 1:06 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Regardless of what data we collect, the measurements of such I find to be rather ambiguous. Take 'time', for instance. One minute is equal to sixty seconds. However, change the gravitational force (as in a theoretical black hole) and that one minute can stretch into two thousand years and, once past the event horizon, becomes an eternity. But what if all that's just plain wrong? The fault doesn't lie with the black hole or human perception, but rather with the concept of time which never really existed to begin with. We understand practically nothing about the universe, all we really have are concepts, regardless of such prized human inventions such as science and measurement. You cannot call 2pm in Atlanta as 2pm in San Diego, nor can you use the earth or its contents as a basis for measuring the galaxy, it's instant error.
LEATHERFACE
Hail Caesar
3,756 Posts
34/M/NC


offline  mobile reply   (7)
November 26 2011 1:18 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
I would say that once we actually travel to different places in the galaxy, and record what we find, only then can it be called science. What passes for science now is simply speculation. That distant star we call a quasar may in fact be a McDonalds the size of our sun, we just don't know and we're collectively terrified of admitting it.
Tim E. Husk
slavar som djur
19,110 Posts
52/M/NA


offline   (1)
November 26 2011 6:53 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Lol. Keep on keepin' on.
ass nipples
old dancing boy
38,118 Posts
33/M/PA


offline  mobile reply   (7)
November 26 2011 7:34 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
takemetoyourdealer.jpg
LEATHERFACE
Hail Caesar
3,756 Posts
34/M/NC


offline  mobile reply   (7)
November 28 2011 7:29 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
Meh, to each his own.
Tim E. Husk
slavar som djur
19,110 Posts
52/M/NA


offline   (1)
November 28 2011 11:58 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
I agree with you about a lot of things, but I am surprised by this. It's all so anti science.

Systems of measurement are always arbitrary. Everyone knows this. It's quite another thing to contend that the concepts they are designed to quantify do not exist or are 'only' our 'concepts' as if that means that they are suspect. Do we know everything about time? Of course not, but to suggest that time is an irrelevant concept is mind boggling.
LEATHERFACE
Hail Caesar
3,756 Posts
34/M/NC


offline  mobile reply   (7)
November 28 2011 12:20 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
I'm not trying to sound anti-science, I apologize if it comes across that way. We're one species trying to thrive in the middle of a cosmos, it helps to have some semblance of solidarity in the form of understanding that cosmos. I guess my point is that somewhere out there it's highly possible that our most basic understandings of existence are completely turned on their head; that the rules for our universe apply merely to our universe. To say that traveling at the speed of light is absurd seems to me like an absurd statement. My brain isn't set up like a scientist's, it's set up like an artist's, therefor I think creatively. I believe that humanity has been mimicking the galaxy as early as the first civilization. Just look at a major city with it's core and suburban sprawl, its rings on influence tying in to other such hubs. Even the most secluded tribes in the amazon or papa new guinea operate in the same manner. I don't necessarily believe that mathematical equations and such are the sole means for understanding the way of things, therefor I would say that physics are indeed a concept of that overall understanding. The painting I made (called "deerhunter", I think it's posted somewhere on these boards) caught the attention of two visiting physics professors at the local university, yet I'm no physicist. I don't disregard possibilities for any reason, that's just how I roll.
forum Politics and Society ›› UFO's and shit.. ›› new reply Post Reply

Quick Reply - RE: UFO's and shit..

Connect with Facebook to comment: Login w/FB

or Sign up free! - or login:







Subject


wrap selection with italics
wrap selection with bold
insert less than symbol
insert greater than symbol


google image Insert Google Images
Share a Band



Your ad here?