Main > Everything Else

Faster than light? Someone with a big brain can help?

<< < (7/12) > >>

Dervacumen:
Sounds to me like another example of the whole of science not being a perfect representation of actuality.  I mean, as a whole we're trying to make sense of the world around us and we construct these theories, test them and move on based on the result of the results.  Science isn't right or wrong, but it's undoubtedly the best thing we have going.  It just isn't perfect.  Philosophically speaking, you can never prove anything in science to be right anyway, only wrong.  And maybe this experiment proved the famous equation wrong.  Maybe there's another variable in there that holds the value zero in almost all instances.  Except this one.  But I'm kinda with Donk on this.  I think we had a crossover of different planes of existence at the exact moment the speed was attained.

Vigo:

--- Quote from: pldoolittle on September 23, 2011, 07:18:11 pm ---
--- Quote from: Vigo on September 23, 2011, 05:09:46 pm ---I think the point is that dark matter is merely theory stacking. The empirical data didn't add up on the big bang theory, so rather than going back to the drawing board on it, they shove in dark matter to make it work. The problem is there is no direct evidence of dark matter, and it relies on the big bang theory to be held up to begin with. That in itself is a circular reference, and it goes against scientific method to still call them supported theories at this point.
--- End quote ---

Sorry, but your reply shows a marked lack of knowledge of the theories in question, the process, and the scientific method itself. But for reference;

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html


--- End quote ---

Your unnecessary jabs on me aside, I was really thinking that I might have missed something about dark matter when I read the title of this article you posted, especially considering the source was NASA. Maybe real direct proof of dark matter did exist. The article was over six years olds, and I remember reading about scientist trying to directly prove dark matter this year with no luck.

I then read the article and found it much more presumptive and faulty than the speed of light article. In short, the article is a NASA scientist claiming they proved dark matter because they observe a star cluster collision in space and it didn't collide the way they expected it to. They then turned that into "well, if there was dark matter there, that would probably explain why it acted that way. Zero proof, zero emperical data, just a hypothesis. A great example about how even "top scientists" abuse the scientific method. At least the speed of light article had empirical data backing it, even if that data could be wrong.

Also, I think you don't know the difference between dark matter theory and dark matter itself. Some form of matter that fits into the dark matter category exists. Neutrinos. We know they exist, but they do nothing to prove dark matter theory, that over 80-90 of the matter in the universe is composed of dark matter. The big bang theory was 80-90% off in its calculations, so they filled the mass end of the equation. Neutrinos are far too light in mass to be real candidates of the dark matter that would fill the equation.

SuprSprint:

--- Quote from: Vigo on September 24, 2011, 11:57:25 am ---Your unnecessary jabs on me aside
--- End quote ---

I'm sorry you took it that way. It wasn't intended as a jab, but an observation based on some of your comments.


--- Quote from: Vigo on September 24, 2011, 11:57:25 am ---I think you don't know the difference between dark matter theory and dark matter itself.
--- End quote ---

The Georgia Institute of Technology does not agree with your assessment.

danny_galaga:

--- Quote from: Sir Headless VII on September 23, 2011, 12:50:20 pm ---
--- Quote from: pinballjim on September 23, 2011, 11:48:46 am ---Sounds like a bunch of unicorn farts or something to me.

Shame to see educated people waste so much time studying things that will do absolutely nothing to improve our situation in the real world.



--- End quote ---

It's true science has never produced anything useful.

--- End quote ---

:duckhunt

Has anyone else read Timescape, by Gregory Benford. Now we can warn the past about heinous wrongs in the present, like Crocs

SuprSprint:

--- Quote from: Dervacumen on September 24, 2011, 10:50:21 am ---Sounds to me like another example of the whole of science not being a perfect representation of actuality...
--- End quote ---

Exactly.  Science itself is the neverending quest for the perfect representation. Even 1000yrs from now, it will not be "complete".


--- Quote from: Dervacumen on September 24, 2011, 10:50:21 am ---I think we had a crossover of different planes of existence at the exact moment the speed was attained.
--- End quote ---

You don't even have to get that fancy.  You can change reference frames without changing dimensions.  As such, simple velocity dependent time dilation or spatial warping will satisfy the solution and maintain a constant C.


--- Quote from: pinballjim on September 24, 2011, 08:21:27 pm ---There's no monetary value in this discovery and millions are still dying from malaria.
--- End quote ---

Agree and disagree. That there is no value, disagree.  That it is a crying shame that we spend BILLIONS on political footballs, while just a few millions would saves countless lives from malaria, cholera, etc. is an travesty of criminal magnitude.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version