Speed of Light...BROKEN! Holy Hole in Relativity, Batman!

what science class taught you that?

 

wow that's awesome.. I think I've read that one before.. Must share with peple

 

People have always died from cancers and stress, just to be clear cancer and stress have been with humans since the beginning.

 

So, this is your back-handed way of saying you disagree?

You don't really deserve an answer, but I'll tell you I learned it at MIT and if you want to learn more, see this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility

 

lol, i was half-joking. ease up a little.

I know this needs to be verified to rule out that it wasn't an error in the measuring process, computers, etc etc. if it turns out that the whole experiment was accurate then it is in science. it already is, in fact (unless proven to be an error), because some science books will start mentioning this result when talking about speed of light. and my hunch is, it will be reproduced. it's only a matter of time (lol).

 

actually, I would like to disagree with this. it is not that time goes by slower when you're young, but it is that your brain processes information faster then. it's all in the brain processing speeds that determine the apparent flow of time for us. when you're young those speeds are higher, it gets slower as you get older and thus time seems to flow by faster at higher age. it's different for different individuals. also, this is the same thing that makes the time slow down when you're about to be in a car accident. your brain starts processing incoming information faster than under regular circumstances and as a result time seems to slow down. i have been in a situation like that myself, and i know this phenomenon first hand.

so it is simple to understand that what you are experiencing is not the external objective flow of time (as such, since time doesn't exist) but it is the way your internal environment processes this incoming information that seems to bestow different speeds upon the flow of events/time.

speed of light is independent of that.

 

Meanwhile,while causing all this kerfuffle among the greatest minds of our time,light remains invisible.......good trick,that.

 

its a bit early to be planing that next vacation to a neighboring galaxy, but truth is, we don't KNOW nothing can go faster then light. we've yet to build anything capable of on-board observation that even approaches half of it.

 

the bible says.. Noah died 350 years after the Flood, at the age of 950.. :wheelchair:

 

Never heard of that theory before but that wouldn't explain why other animals get cancers as well. Just wondering, do you remember the name of this theory or who published it, would like to figure out the logic that makes such a theory plausible.

 

i think the speed of light was miscalculated or distorted by other atoms interference.

 

I still think it's a bit dodgy for ANY human to say we know the speed of something that's invisible and has no mass,meaning we can't see it coming,can't watch it moving,can't catch it...we can only see where it's been.

 

You should read more about physics; you might find it interesting.

 

I AM interested,sunfighter,that's why I asked.
I can accept I seem dim to those who study this stuff for a living-but most of the people who don't have only a basic understanding of physics.
One of the fundamental things we were taught is that nothing...NOTHING...can exceed the speed of light.

So-that SURELY blows the Big Bang theory out of the water?

I mean-if all the mass contained in this universe suddenly exploded outward,HOW did that mass exceed the speed of light so it COULD escape it's own event horizon,given that Black Holes are so called because even light can't escape the gravitational pull?

From what I've read,the furthest object we can see is 13 billion light years away.
That means we're seeing it as it was circa 1 billion years after the BB.
So-to travel 13 billion light years in 1 billion years means it would have to exceed the s.o.l by 13 times.

THEN I get told that the laws of physics didn't operate in the first few milliseconds after the Bang...oh,how very convenient.
Now we're told that massless matter only gained mass by interacting with a thing called a Higgs Bosun...something no-one has ever seen or found,or even found EVIDENCE of, despite a LOT of expensive searching.

Plus,how come there are 'population 2' stars,which have no heavy elements?
Surely,the whole exploding mass would have evenly distributed everything in all directions,especially heavy elements,which after all are produced by explosions?
Surely all bodies should be RIPE with heavy elements,other than those which have already lived out their lives and exploded....which would produce MORE heavy elements?

There were people in our scientific history who were 'right' until proven wrong;
Lemaitre
Aristotle
Ptolemy
perhaps even Edwin Hubble,who refused to countenance any explanation for background radiation other than echoes of his Big Bang.

All I'm doing is joining in a really fascinating thread that has some MUCH more educated and intelligent minds than mine,to see if there ARE any definitive answers to questions that crop up in a persons mind as he trucks across Europe.

And if a thicky like me can ponder such things,then other more astute minds CERTAINLY must.

 

there has to be a mistake somewhere. This is like saying the car is traveling faster than the gas combustion within the engine.

 

Yes, and that, if you read the actual report of the scientists involved, is what they are saying.

Extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence. In this case, they don't have extraordinary evidence, just one result from one experiment. Since the apparent result of the experiment is so startling, they have asked other scientists to help them find the error.

They have deliberately not concluded that this is actually evidence of particles traveling faster than light. That is merely a speculation by uninformed media hacks and tinfoil hat bloggers.

 

they do believe the vibrating strings in the m-theory move faster than light....

 

OK, obviously you've done some reading. Sorry I implied you hadn't.

But on this point, I don't see the confusion. Starting at the location of the Big Bang, light went one billion light-years in one billion years. Then, in the next twelve billion years, it went an additional twelve billion light years to the point where we can see it. Nothing went faster than c.

 

Well the thing is we see it not only AS it was,but WHERE it was circa a billion years after the theorised BB.
Which means our relative positions were 13 billion light-years apart just a billion years after the Bang.
Plus everything we see in the sky has angular momentum.
Everything rotates,stars,galaxies,planets,everything.

A dimensionless singularity CANNOT have or produce rotation,particularly with such variations in velocity as we see-so that's why I ask these questions,because I'm interested to see if there ARE any inarguable answers that will make me-and all the others who are too shy to ask but who are following this thread-go "Oh! Of COURSE!"