Re: We have to respect the limits of human knowledge!

On Dec 10, 2:17 am, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10 Dec, 01:09, Einar <eina...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Dec 9, 7:21 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snipped for focus]

I have no need to prove statements that are self evidently true, i.e.
that it´s not possible to know everything and therefore that some
things will remain unattainable for all of time. I provited examples
like about objects that are millions of lightyears away that we will
allways remain in the dark about theyr present condition. That we will
never know the full extend of the universe, after all the observable
bubble is 13 billion lightyears across already, actually believed due
to accelerating expansion to be in fact 50 to 60 billion lightyears
across. That we will never be able to travel to the objects that are
at the far range of our observable universe, after all in order to do
that we would have to exceed the speed of light which by definition is
impossible.

The whole of your issue about the impossible seems to rest on the
speed of light and it being impossible to exceed this limit.

And have you proven that this is impossible? No you have merely
declared it to be impossible.

People much wiser than any of us in these newsgroups have been left
with egg on their face when a thing they dismissed as impossible was
proven to be possible a short while later.

I did a little digging and came up with Lord Kelvin, a very reputable
scientist in the late 1800's who declared that heavier than air
powered flight was impossible, a position he solidly adhered to even
when reminded that birds were heavier than air and could fly.

A mere eight years later the Wright brothers' Kitty Hawk flew,
admittedly only 120 feet in 12 seconds (a mere 7 miles per hour) at a
height of just 10 feet.

I believe that Lord Kelvin was still alive at that time too.

And just 44 years later Chuck Yeager in a Bell X-1 broke the sound
barrier (that's well over 700 miles per hour).

More recently, I think in was in the late 1990's a vehicle called the
Thrust SSC was the first land vehicle to break the sound barrier.

Again it had been thought it was impossible to exceed the speed of
sound in a land based vehicle, but these guys didn't let it stop them
from trying and succeeding.

As you can see from this just saying a thing is impossible doesn't
make it impossible.

And as I have said before imagination (or the lack thereof) is the
major limit on what can be achieved.

Let your imagination off of the leash once in a while and see what it
can do for you.

:)



Now, for making very reasonable statements like that you have been
haranging me, calling me a loon. I beg to differ, to say the least.

Einar

Now, now,,,the lightspeed barryer is massively different order of a
problem than the sound barryer. That is not just about the difference
between the velocities in question, which is massive and then some,
but also about physics.

The reason why I don´t have to prove exceeding the speed of light
impossible is that Einstein has already done so, with his theory of
general relativity. I merely have to accept his thesis, and the
challenge is really on you people to prove Eintein and Einteinian
physics wrong.

According to Einsteinian physics, at speed of light the energy level´s
of the spacecraft have reached infinity. Moreover, the at the speed of
light time from the point of view of the spacecraft is completely
halted. Therefore, anyone inside that spacecraft experience no passing
of time.

Essentially what it means is that at the speed of light, the
hypothetical spacecraft has become pure energy, essentially a ray of
energy which then will travel throughout space till the time comes it
either hits some object or the universe ends in some manner.

Now, this is all hypothetical, as by definition which is generally
accepted by modern physics, achieving infinity of any kind is
impossible, which effectivelly rules out achieving infinite levels of
energy, and thus rules out achieving the speed of light. That pesky
litle thing also rules out achieving a speed greater than the speed of
light.


Now, like I said, when assumptions are self evidently correct, I don´t
have to support them or prove them in any fashion. It´s anyone who is
trying to challenge them who has to prove them wrong.

Einar

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Heavy Lift Design for Mining/Cargo Propulsion
    ... Its not semantics its physics. ... You do NOT want to look at the physics! ... lol. ... I'm working in the alternative energy business right now. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Geometrical interpretation of c^2
    ... direction at moving from energy to rest mass smoothly along the same ... conversion frequency at which energy turns to matter because it ... "Understanding how to deal with dimensions is so important that the ... I really suggest you try to master the basics of physics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... >> I have never read this article of Einstein in Sci Am why I am ... > usual conception of an aether. ... > POR is that is applies to all the laws of physics in inertial frames - ... >> substrate of radiant energy from all astrophysical bodies, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: DNA carries information
    ... entropy in the statistical thermo sense, ... demon who can recognize which side of a frictionless piston ... closing the door itself requires energy. ... said "The physics of information is a fascinating subject, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... >> I have never read this article of Einstein in Sci Am why I am ... > usual conception of an aether. ... > POR is that is applies to all the laws of physics in inertial frames - ... >> substrate of radiant energy from all astrophysical bodies, ...
    (sci.physics)