what if information can be transmitted faster than c

[swansont]

I'm just saying that I'm more willing to say that than you are to say that FTL travel may eventually be possible.

 

Perhaps that ties in with the amount of scientific training you've undergone.

[Sayonara]

If he changed it to "aFTL" he'd have almost gotten away with it.

[Rasori]

Look at it this way:

Theory: something based on facts. Generally agreed upon, but can change (Einstein's THEORY of Relativity).

Law: something based on observations that explain things that happen in everyday life. Can, but usually don't, change. (Newton's LAWS)

It's not Einstein's LAW of Relativity, and even if it was it could still (with very few chances) change. Since it is only a theory (a well-grounded one, granted, but still a theory), it has the chance to change up until we prove it to be true. We haven't yet.

But then, as I already said, this is a stupid argument that (I admit it) I started, and I tried to end it. Why do we carry it on?

[5614]

Why do we carry it on?

its you who's continuing it not us!

[Rasori]

I'm not going to carry this on because it's a useless argument that I started for no apparent reason, but I would willingly say to you that 1+1 doesn't always = 2 if you want me to, because I still think that someday we might have a chance[/b'] at disproving it.

 

if you think that no tricks, no binary, straight forward pure maths that a single unit (1) + or added to a second single unit (1+1) could be equivelent to anything other than 2 units or 2 then i will happily stop the argument now.

 

not trying to make it sound like your dumb, just wanna make sure you're not saying like 1 and 1 = 11 or sumin!

 

I rest my case with "I'm not going to carry this on..." from me, post #23. The comment after that is called a closing statement. They use them in court proceedings (big arguments) all the time.

[JaKiri]

Look at it this way:

Theory: something based on facts. Generally agreed upon' date=' but can change (Einstein's THEORY of Relativity).

Law: something based on observations that explain things that happen in everyday life. Can, but usually don't, change. (Newton's LAWS)

It's not Einstein's LAW of Relativity, and even if it was it could still (with very few chances) change. Since it [i']is[/i] only a theory (a well-grounded one, granted, but still a theory), it has the chance to change up until we prove it to be true. We haven't yet.

 

I don't know where you got that from, but it definitely wasn't from some generally accepted source of scientific philosophy.

[Rasori]

...I tried to end this.

You don't agree that a theory is less solid then a law? If not, I honestly must wonder what the world is coming to.

 

I just said that in a much more elaborated form.

[JaKiri]

...I tried to end this.

You don't agree that a theory is less solid then a law? If not' date=' I honestly must wonder what the world is coming to.[/quote']

 

Given that, as best we can measure, Special Relativity is correct and Newton's Laws of Gravitation aren't, I suspect that your example law is less 'solid' than your example theory.

[Janus]

...I tried to end this.

You don't agree that a theory is less solid then a law? If not' date=' I honestly must wonder what the world is coming to.

 

[/quote']

 

Law:A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met.

 

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

 

A law is a description of natural phenomena, while a theory is an explanation of said phenomena. You're comparing apples to oranges.

[swansont]

Law:A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met.

 

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena' date=' especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

 

A law is a [i']description[/i] of natural phenomena, while a theory is an explanation of said phenomena. You're comparing apples to oranges.

 

Right. Basically, to be a law you have to be able to write down a fairly simple equation, or a statement that behaves like an equation (e.g. the law of supply and demand)

 

Theories do not "grow up" to be laws. The theory of relativity will never be a law, but that has nothing to do with its validity and everything to do with its complexity.

[Rasori]

I never said that the Theory of Relativity would ever grow into a law. I was just saying that theories are less solid than laws. I also never said that it was invalid. I just stated that one day we might get around it.

 

But, like I said twice already, STOP this useless argument. We have a difference in opinion, and that's that. We aren't going to change each others minds (you have a reason not to change, I'm just stubborn).

[JaKiri]

I never said that the Theory of Relativity would ever grow into a law. I was just saying that theories are less solid than laws.

 

Given that, as best we can measure, Special Relativity is correct and Newton's Laws of Gravitation aren't, I suspect that your example law is less 'solid' than your example theory.

 

The only reason this 'argument' is useless is because you refuse to accept the fact that you're wrong.

[Rasori]

Hence:

But, like I said twice already, STOP this useless argument. We have a difference in opinion, and that's that. We aren't going to change each others minds (you have a reason not to change, I'm just stubborn).

[JaKiri]

Hence:

 

Yeah, but blindly on I go, mindlessly accepting that it's possible for people to change what they think when there's an obvious contradiction.

[Rasori]

For most people they will change what they think, but... Ah, the wonders of youth.

[swansont]

I never said that the Theory of Relativity would ever grow into a law. I was just saying that theories are less solid than laws.

 

And that is incorrect. It is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion. Not changing your mind doesn't mean you are being open-minded, it means you are being obtuse.

 

As was already pointed out, Newton's law of gravitation is on much less solid ground than the general theory of relativity.

[Rasori]

FOR THE LAST TIME, STOP THIS USELESS ARGUMENT!

 

It's entirely a matter of opinion as to whether it's a matter of fact, because it hasn't yet been proven that FTL travel is impossible, it's just extremely likely that it is.

 

And yes, for the third time, it's a useless argument because I'm too stubborn to change my mind. Shoot me, I don't care.

[aguy2]

What if information can be transmitted greater than C?

 

As in communicating in 'real time' to someone 4 light years away? If communicating in 'real time' over relativistic distances is considered the problem, here is a possible future solution: you transmit the information you wish to communicate 4 years and 5 minutes into your past and request that they transcribe it and post it off electromagnetically, and 'waala' you've communicated to someone (or thing) 4 light years away in 'real time'! Of course then we would have to ask if we have broken any 'time rules' by transmitting information into the past.

 

anyway is it possible to have an object that is absolutely at rest?

 

Here you may be asking an interesting and possibly important question we might be able to answer with our present technology. Our galaxy alone may have a velocity of up to 1/35 C, not counting the possibility that the universe may be expanding. Time dilation effects may not be that much at 1/35 C, but they still are real.

 

aguy2

[swansont]

FOR THE LAST TIME' date=' STOP THIS USELESS ARGUMENT![/b']

 

It's entirely a matter of opinion as to whether it's a matter of fact, because it hasn't yet been proven that FTL travel is impossible, it's just extremely likely that it is.

 

And yes, for the third time, it's a useless argument because I'm too stubborn to change my mind. Shoot me, I don't care.

 

You do realize you are not obligated to participate any further, right? You can just leave the thread alone?

 

I was referring to your statement about theories and laws when I said it was a matter of fact, not opinion. Your first clue would have been what I quoted. Your second clue would have been what I said in support of my statement.

[swansont]

Here you may be asking an interesting and possibly important question we might be able to answer with our present technology. Our galaxy alone may have a velocity of up to 1/35 C' date=' not counting the possibility that the universe may be expanding. Time dilation effects may not be that much at 1/35 C, but they still are real.

[/quote']

 

Moving at 1/35 c with respect to what? Without defining a reference, it's like asking, "What the difference between a duck?"

[john5746]

Maybe in the space-time dimensions > c isn't possible.

[aguy2]

Moving at 1/35 c with respect to what? Without defining a reference, it's like asking, "What the difference between a duck?"

 

My apologies. It had been a long time since I checked this data. The galaxtic velocity of 1/35 C included recessional velocity. Our Local Cluster velocity in reference to the Virgo Cluster is only about 371 kps or only about 1/1000 of C.

 

aguy2

[reverse]

hey rasori.

 

don’t' get intimidated.

Science is their religion.

That’s why they act that way.

Everyone who ever did anything great, challenged the existing mindset.

 

you will never get support once you step outside the norm , at least until you have a hard proof.

then all the nay Sayers will be climbing over themselves trying to kiss your +++.

(sorry too crude)

[Sayonara]

Your interpretation, or the way you put it across?

[reverse]

.