Originally posted by KellyJaySo you are arguing that because I am not omnipotent and cannot do every possible thing and try every possible test case then I can never ever be sure about anything. I agree. We all know that. It is therefore rather stupid to go around pointing it out every time someone says anything.
As usual? Everything you have talked about not just the trip falls into
to the word theory not just the trip! I said in theory because no one
has done those things to see if they are true, I point that out then
the crying began and I get grief. I am not disagreeing with Einstein,
what good would it do, I cannot disprove the statement about light
travel ...[text shortened]... t credit for otherwise someone would have come up with
the proper theory for everything.
Kelly
I say: "I'm going outside and I will find a road outside."
Kelly: "In theory"
I say: "I am going to click post, and this post is going to get onto the internet"
Kelly: "In theory"
See how silly it looks.
But we both know that that is not what you meant. What you really meant is that you don't believe that Einstein was right, and you are just trying to cover up your ridiculous beliefs with your nobody knows anything for sure diatribe.
As for this particular case, Einsteins theory can and has been proved to work in every single case that it has been tested.
It hink that you are not agreed upon the very word "Theory".
How do you define "Theory"?
What is the truth value of "Theory"? Abolute truth or a wild guess?
To believe in a "Theory", what does that mean to you?
...and such.
Then you can discuss the definition about "Science" and "Belief" and more things that you are not sure about wether you are in concensus or not. Later, when you know for sure that you have the same definition about these basic words, then you can discuss the idea of ID, if it is science or religion. Or else this discussion is not leading anywhere. Now I think one of you discuss apples and the other one pears.
Originally posted by twhiteheadDid I say you were required to be omnipotent? Silly is making the
So you are arguing that because I am not omnipotent and cannot do every possible thing and try every possible test case then I can never ever be sure about anything. I agree. We all know that. It is therefore rather stupid to go around pointing it out every time someone says anything.
I say: "I'm going outside and I will find a road outside."
Kelly: "In ...[text shortened]... s theory can and has been proved to work in every single case that it has been tested.
comparison you did, we have a very firm handle on the internet,
we use it daily; however, can you count and tell me how many times
you have travelled the speed of life and seen time affected by
your travailing at that speed? This is just another example of the
'theory' is a fact to some.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, but with particles.
You have done that in practice? Simple question yes or no, if you
have not and cannot and others are all in the same boat than you
and they have to say in theory, you might imagine it is the reality we
live in, but beyond that you are steep in theory nothing more.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayHow do you have the nerve to question something you never studied or understand... More then that, you question the validity of observations...
No, don't worry about it, there are some here who have suggested that
it is not a theory, but someone has actually done this and they can
show us the data I guess. I'm waiting on their documentation now,
as soon as they show it was done we can take the word theory out of
this subject and assign it to the reality we live in.
Kelly
You're unbelievably stupid, and you think it's all ok to question everything without even knowing what you're questioning.
"in theory"... your stupidity makes me nauseous to a point you and your like made me quit coming to these forums.
Monkeys eat bananas and don't discuss science. So, go and make a prayer or something else you know.
Originally posted by serigadoHow do I have the nerve, didn't know it required nerve to point out
How do you have the nerve to question something you never studied or understand... More then that, you question the validity of observations...
You're unbelievably stupid, and you think it's all ok to question everything without even knowing what you're questioning.
"in theory"... your stupidity makes me nauseous to a point you and your like made me quit ...[text shortened]... at bananas and don't discuss science. So, go and make a prayer or something else you know.
that none of us has ever travelled at the speed of light personally,
and done the things that were claimed, which I pointed out was only
in theory. Didn't know it required nerve to cry bull *hit when
someone says they have done something so out of the realm of
man's abilities it has to be questioned. It also does not require
nerve to ask questions about a subject I have not studied; however,
it does require nerve in my opinion to suggest no can question
anything claimed, even if they have not studied the subject. You
running down the elitist path that only the wise among should
think about these things or talk about them, or question claims
and so on?
I do not care one wit you get nauseous, if your beliefs get questioned.
You have not seen anyone travel at the speed of light and verify those
things, you may think you know what would happen, but until that time
it is a theory. When you get into a working Warp speed engine we can
talk. Until that time it isn't science but science fiction you really have
going for you.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayNothing has been observed to travel "at the speed of light" and no one believes this is possible; however if you are talking about speeds close to that of light (say .999999c) then this is done every day in particle accelerators and the process is very well understood. We definitely know exactly how fast these particles are going or we would not be able to cause them to collide. Furthermore cosmic rays are known to travel very close to the speed of light, and time dilation has been observed in relation to them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_rays#Detection).
Explain please, you are saying "you have travelled" at the speed of
light with particles, or you are saying you have witnessed the event by
looking at particles? What are you claiming?
Kelly
Relativity in general and time dilation in particular have been confirmed to great accuracy for macroscopic objects (atomic clocks) going at ordinary speeds.
At very very small length scales relativity and quantum mechanics are hard to reconcile and current theories are inadequate. Presumably, then general relativity is not /quite/ perfect at any length scale. If we ignore quantum experiments, though, GR has predicted the right results correctly to any accuracy we can measure. There is absolutely no indication that GR would fail on a trip to Alpha Centauri. It has been confirmed on the scale of the solar system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury). Sure, anything is /possible/. It could be somewhere in the laws of physics a rider got passed that stipulates that any human being traveling faster than .5c gets turned into an elephant. But there's no reason to doubt that an interstellar journey of this sort would work as we expect it too since GR has been confirmed as accurate for comparable length, mass, and time scales.
Originally posted by KellyJayKJ - would you be happy with the following statement:
How do I have the nerve, didn't know it required nerve to point out
that none of us has ever travelled at the speed of light personally,
and done the things that were claimed, which I pointed out was only
in theory. Didn't know it required nerve to cry bull *hit when
someone says they have done something so out of the realm of
man's abilities it has to ...[text shortened]... Until that time it isn't science but science fiction you really have
going for you.
Kelly
Considering the evidence we currently have to confirm the general theory of relativity and the occurence of time dilation with particles travelling at the ~speed of light. Nothing in theory would suggest that time travel for humans is impossible.
Yes?
No?
Originally posted by timebombtedTime travel? Where did that came from?
KJ - would you be happy with the following statement:
Considering the evidence we currently have to confirm the general theory of relativity and the occurence of time dilation with particles travelling at the ~speed of light. Nothing in theory would suggest that time travel for humans is impossible.
Yes?
No?
Kelly,
You don't seem to very aware of the facts of the matter you are disputing. Do you even understand the basis GR theory? I would be interested if you would post a message outlining your understanding of GR and the ideas it is based on.
GR has been tested in many ways, some of which have been mentioned in the thread already. So far all experiments have been consistent with GR at the accuracy we can measure to.
However, although GR has been confirmed to the limit of our current abilities to test it, you are right to say that it is a "theory", i.e: it has not been proved for all possible cases.
What you fail to realise is that even if we eventually find some experimental results which do not conform to GR that the resulting modification to GR will be such that it only effects processes which at the moment we cant measure. What I mean is, GR accurately describes all currently observed processes, so if we eventually need to change GR to accommodate some new observations the changes will need to be such that GR is not effected on the length and energy scales which we have already explored.
A relevant example of this is Newtonian Mechanics. At the time of Issac Newton, his famous "laws of motion" described all observed processes accurately to the accuracy which they could be observed. We can now measure things more accurately and have found Newtonian Mechanics to be not entirely correct, but the important point is they are still correct for all processes which could be observed in Issac Newton's time. In fact, GR only deviates from Newtonian physics at extreme limits, (when moving close to (~70 of) the speed of light, or in extreme gravity for example), and GR reduces to Newtonian Mechanics at normal "every day" conditions.
My (somewhat rambling) point is that GR may not be entirely correct for everything (in fact research is going on at the moment to hunt for gravity ripples predicted by GR and opinion is divided as to if they will be found or not!). But it must be correct for all the processes we have observed, and this is true of a near light speed trip to another planet.
Originally posted by KellyJayOnce again you demonstrate a lack of understanding of GR.
How do I have the nerve, didn't know it required nerve to point out
that none of us has ever travelled at the speed of light personally,
and done the things that were claimed, which I pointed out was only
in theory. Didn't know it required nerve to cry bull *hit when
someone says they have done something so out of the realm of
man's abilities it has to ...[text shortened]... Until that time it isn't science but science fiction you really have
going for you.
Kelly
GR prohibits things with mass from ever travelling at the speed of light. The energy needed to accelerate an object increases as the objects speed increases. When the object is close to the speed of light the energy needed to increase its speed increases and it turns out you need infinite energy to actually reach the speed of light, which cant happen.
This has been observed by measuring the energy needed to accelerate massive particles (such as electrons or protons) at near light speeds.
Originally posted by RetrovirusTraveling close to C would give a sort of time travel, but for the travelers, it is just one way, travel into their personal future. They can't go back in time, just forward faster than people who stick around at normal velocities like on earth which is going about 200 miles per second, not enough to give much GR time dilation.
Time travel? Where did that came from?
Originally posted by KellyJayPoint-- Kelly Jay. 🙂
How do I have the nerve, didn't know it required nerve to point out
that none of us has ever travelled at the speed of light personally,
and done the things that were claimed, which I pointed out was only
in theory. Didn't know it required nerve to cry bull *hit when
someone says they have done something so out of the realm of
man's abilities it has to ...[text shortened]... Until that time it isn't science but science fiction you really have
going for you.
Kelly
Originally posted by timebombtedYes
KJ - would you be happy with the following statement:
Considering the evidence we currently have to confirm the general theory of relativity and the occurence of time dilation with particles travelling at the ~speed of light. Nothing in theory would suggest that time travel for humans is impossible.
Yes?
No?
Kelly