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

On 11 Dec, 20:47, Einar <eina...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 11, 4:19 am, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On 11 Dec, 00:21,Einar<eina...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

Are you suggesting that the sound barrier has nothing to do with
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.

The theory of general relativity is nothing to do with the speed of
light and has everything to do with gravity.

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.

Two false statements here, it isn't the energy level of the spacecraft
that becomes infinite, but the momentum. And to achieve that infinite
momentum would need an infinite amount of energy to be applied to the
spacecraft.

Also time doesn't come to a halt inside the spacecraft, it merely
appears to do so from the point of view of an outside observer and
that is a completely different thing.

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.

What science book did you get this nonsense from? Nothing in
Einsteinian physics even suggests that this would happen.

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.

In your OP you declared that a lot of what is accepted as scientific
knowledge is not firmly proven, yet now you are holding up Einstein's
theory of general relativity as proven.

No one has built a spacecraft and accelerated it to near lightspeed in
order to see if Einstein was right, the only evidence that he *may* be
right is presented in the mathematical formulae that are part and
parcel of the theory. So how can you hold this theory up as proven to
the degree that it doesn't need to be proven anymore?

However the formulae in Einstein's theory of special relativity show
that - hypothetically - there are particles that exist that cannot
travel *slower* than the speed of light, and these particles have been
called "tachyons".

Further examination of these formulae, and other formulae from string
theory and the theory of quantum gravity now suggest that these
tachyons don't exist as discreet particles but as a tachyonic field.

And it has been suggested that if such a field could be generated
around a spaceship, it would distort space, contracting it in front of
the spaceship and expanding it behind the spaceship.

This distorted space would propel the region of space inside the
tachyonic field forward at speeds exceeding that of light, but the
spaceship and everyone in it would not experience any of the effects
one would normally feel with any kind of acceleration.

So the only problem now is to determine the qualities of a tachyonic
field and then built a tachyonic field generator.

This may well be impossible at our current level of technology, but
that doesn't mean it will always remain so.

Just remember Lord Kelvin declared heavier than air powered flight was
impossible and was proven wrong.

What makes Einstein's position any stronger than Lord Kelvin's?

Einar- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are a moron,

That's so rich coming from someone who doesn't know the difference
between general relativity and special relativity.

how does what I said,...

"quote "I repeat, my assertions are simply based on what is generally
accepte as true in modern physics. Doubting them is the same as
doubting modern physics." unquote"

...become an assertion that the said theory is proven.

However, there exists some actual scientific research into the near
lightspeed neighborhood, i.e. actual rearch data. You may have heard
about 'lineral accelerators' which are used to accelerate particles of
matter into speeds approaching the relativistic speeds region. Now,
while these may only be particles, they can still be used to get some
idea about what happens once you approach the speed of light.

You clearly read far to much cheap science fiction. There is
preciselly '0' evidence so far about the existence of tachyons.

Judging by some of your comments it would seem you are the one who
reads too much cheap science fiction.

When scientific formulae suggest that something exists this is
considered to be evidence by the scientific community. And then they
work on ways to prove experimentally that the mathematical evidence is
valid.

In fact nobody has the first idea how ships might jump around the
galaxy, which does not stop people from suggesting ideas.

The suggestion that Harold Saxon refers to isnt simply an idea with no
basis in fact. It is a scientific theory solidly based on general
relativity.

But as you seem to have a limited understanding of special and general
relativity it isnt surprising that you don't know the difference
between an idea and a scientific theory.

Catherine Asaro in her multibook story about the Skolian Empire,
devices a far more interesting idea. Read it if you´re interested.

Einar- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

fnord was 'ere

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why relativists dont understand Einsteins 1905 mathematics.
    ... speeds we are used to. ... It cannot mutate into waves for part of the journey because by their very nature waves spread out and their energy density reduces. ... The waves of Maxwell's wave in aether theory do not physically exist. ... Essentially what Einstein assumed was that EM theory is correct and that therefore the laws of mechanics had to change resulting in having to ditch 3 long standing and apparently sensible axioms of physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The speed of gravity revisited
    ... and many physics texts read as if the experiment was done and the result is known. ... No one can apply math to physics until they understand physics. ... This holds for every point the test body ever occupies, ... I do have issues with the math of GR for strong fields and high speeds. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
    ... say the same laws of physics apply in all inertial frames of referenec (ie ... "Waldron developed a ballistic theory of light on his own before learning that Walter Ritz had already done it at about the time that Einstein developed his 'Special Relativity'. ... The idea of light separating from the source at different speeds in different FoR is what causes Doppler shift in SR. ... He writes "If a body takes up an amount of energy E then its inertial mass ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
    ... each i.e. at an infinite number of speeds. ... always travels at c in every inertial frmae of reference. ... these days because Physics has outlawed them because it has no answers? ... You do realise that you, yourself, are travelling at an infinite number of ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?
    ... > either of the light emitting vehicles or the local frame of one or the other ... since Relativity addresses c wrt local frames? ... cannot simply add the speeds to get the speed that will be measured for ... Neither physics nor relativity has remained static, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)