Discussion that Einstein was an idiot?

[Marshalscienceguy]

I found discussion online stating Einstein was really an idiot. A lot of this is saying the fact that we CAN go past the speed of light means that the idea that we could not means that Einstein was stupid or the fact he was a German means he was an idiot since all Germany cares about is destroying Jews. Even if his old Research and ideas are today proven incorrect does that necessarily mean hes a complete moron or just that we are improving on ideas he created?

[Phi for All]

Even in the Lounge you aren't going to be able to discuss something like this without some citation to support what you're saying.

 

Personally I'm not interested in talking to people who think, "all Germany cares about is destroying Jews".

 

Frankly, if I wanted a discussion like that, I wouldn't do it here. This sounds like conspiracy and bigotry, with a big dash of "I hate science" thrown in for good measure. Not our cuppa.

[dimreepr]

"the fact that we CAN go past the speed of light"

 

Sorry: How?

 

Edit/ cross posted

Edited April 28, 2014 by dimreepr

[pwagen]

Sounds like you need to stop going to certain sites.

[swansont]

I found discussion online stating Einstein was really an idiot. A lot of this is saying the fact that we CAN go past the speed of light means that the idea that we could not means that Einstein was stupid or the fact he was a German means he was an idiot since all Germany cares about is destroying Jews. Even if his old Research and ideas are today proven incorrect does that necessarily mean hes a complete moron or just that we are improving on ideas he created?

 

Congratulations. You mined the internet and struck idiocy. Finding idiocy on the internet is as easy as falling off a boat and hitting water.

 

Sturgeon's law applies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law

[John Cuthber]

Before you can sensibly call Einstein a moron, you actually need to show that he was wrong.

 

 

Has anything shown him to be so?

Then again...

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/80649-trolling/page-4#entry801016

Edited April 28, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Marshalscienceguy]

"the fact that we CAN go past the speed of light"

 

Sorry: How?

 

Edit/ cross posted

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/particles-found-to-travel/

 

There was research saying you can go faster than Light.

 

If this is true that would break the rule that "Nothing can go past the speed of light".

Edited April 28, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[pwagen]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9100009/Scientists-did-not-break-speed-of-light-it-was-a-faulty-wire.html

[ACG52]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/particles-found-to-travel/

 

There was research saying you can go faster than Light.

That's 3 years out of date. It's the OPERA experiment at CERN. The FTL measurement was an error, caused by a loose cable connection on the detector.

[SamBridge]

Actually I'm pretty sure general and special relativity are some of the most accurately tested theories to date. Muons always last longer by the amount predicted by time dilation, it predicts the accurate locations of orbits around heavily distorted regions of space and how long it takes near-light objects to reach different destinations, how clocks slow down in different gravitational fields, ect.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/particles-found-to-travel/

 

There was research saying you can go faster than Light.

 

If this is true that would break the rule that "Nothing can go past the speed of light".

And that's why I like to say you can't trust a .com site, they always exaggerate stories for the purposes of commercial gain to increased traffic and there's just about no regulation of their speculation. At the very least you should be using wikipedia.org.

Edited April 28, 2014 by SamBridge

[studiot]

For those who think they know what would happen to something travelling faster than light it is instructive to put v>c into the equations.

 

The problem occurs at v=c since relativistic expressions involving the ratio

 

[math]\left( {\frac{v}{c}} \right)[/math]

result in an attempt to divide by zero.

 

This is not the case when v<c or v>c, although the results of the latter calculations are interesting.

Edited April 28, 2014 by studiot

[CharonY]

And even if years down the road someone figures out that something is not quite correct at some point, many of his findings have been put to good use in the last (and I am sure also the coming) decades.

 

It would be like calling out Alexander Fleming an idiot because he initially did not think that penicillin would work in vivo and because he was unable to purify it in sufficient amounts. Considering the amount of lives being saved I would gladly be such an idiot.

[sunshaker]

Wether it takes a thousand years or a million years, One day the speed of light will be broken,

 

In a million years we will/should have control over every aspect of our universe, So somewhere beyond our science at this moment is a way to break the speed of light, To believe something is impossible is for defeatists,

Most of our great breakthroughs were believed impossible at one time, I have belief in the creativeness of the human race.

 

I do not believe anyone here would not believe we could travel faster than light in a million years, So there must be a way now, But beyond us at this moment.

 

There is to much unknown about our universe and its creation, to say yet we cannot travel faster than c.

[swansont]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/particles-found-to-travel/

 

There was research saying you can go faster than Light.

 

If this is true that would break the rule that "Nothing can go past the speed of light".

 

As others have mentioned, that story was incorrect owing to a measurement error.

 

More to the point, "Nothing can go past the speed of light" is not a rule. It's no thing (i.e. massive object or information) can go faster than c. Unconnected phenomena (not causally connected; no information exchange) can "go past" the speed of light. Separation speeds, or phenomena such as a projected beam on a distant screen having the illuminated are exceed c. Those don't violate relativity.

[imatfaal]

Wether it takes a thousand years or a million years, One day the speed of light will be broken,

 

In a million years we will/should have control over every aspect of our universe, So somewhere beyond our science at this moment is a way to break the speed of light, To believe something is impossible is for defeatists,

Most of our great breakthroughs were believed impossible at one time, I have belief in the creativeness of the human race.

 

I do not believe anyone here would not believe we could travel faster than light in a million years, So there must be a way now, But beyond us at this moment.

 

There is to much unknown about our universe and its creation, to say yet we cannot travel faster than c.

 

"I do not believe anyone here would not believe we could travel faster than light in a million years, ..." In a simple race through normal space between someone turning on a laser and a real object - I don't think we will ever be faster than light. Will we find ways around this barrier - wormholes etc - possibly.

[sunshaker]

 

"I do not believe anyone here would not believe we could travel faster than light in a million years, ..." In a simple race through normal space between someone turning on a laser and a real object - I don't think we will ever be faster than light. Will we find ways around this barrier - wormholes etc - possibly.

It seems to me the problem is mass(real objects),

But as real objects are 99.99999% (empty space nucleus to electrons) atoms made from protons neutrons also made from quarks gluons, which also contain "empty space", mass being the product of fields,

 

 

We are now told that the "higgs boson" endows particles with mass, So once we understand the higgs and can shield against the higgs, Surely we can create something that is massless within a higgs free bubble.

 

estimated due date 8/8/10000ad 4.30pm.

 

Mass is a state of mind.

[swansont]

We are now told that the "higgs boson" endows particles with mass, So once we understand the higgs and can shield against the higgs, Surely we can create something that is massless within a higgs free bubble.

 

 

Understanding does not guarantee exploitation. We understand the laws of physics, at some level. That means we follow them (regardless of our wishes), not that we get to violate them.

[imatfaal]

It seems to me the problem is mass(real objects),

But as real objects are 99.99999% (empty space nucleus to electrons) atoms made from protons neutrons also made from quarks gluons, which also contain "empty space", mass being the product of fields,

...

Mass is a state of mind.

 

But even massless objects do not travel "faster" than light - merely at light speed

[sunshaker]

It seems then to me that it is the higgs field that does not allow "massless" or physical objects to go faster than c, Would this be because of the mass of the higgs or the actual higgs field?

I was trying to find a wavelength for the higgs field, but could only find equations that go over my head, I see they have a mass of 125GeV,Which would result in quite a bit of drag getting to speed of c,

 

I was wondering what is the smallest wavelength possible in this universe, whether it could be smaller than the higgs field wavelength, Which could then act as a barrier/bubble against the higgs effect?(hot knife through butter).

Perhaps there are massless particles that travel faster than c, but they are to fast to be aware of or to measure.

 

What is the smallest possible wavelength?

 

slightly detouring, but i found interesting

While looking i came across old articles about neutrinos larger than thousands of galaxies http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090602-particles-larger-than-galaxies.html

 

Always something to explore, . Science is an open book, It is best not to close chapters. Always something new around the corner.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Back on topic, please.

[ajb]

Actually I'm pretty sure general and special relativity are some of the most accurately tested theories to date.

This is true. General relativity has passed all the tests asked of it both directly and indirectly. I do not recall the figures, but GR has been tested to a huge level of accuracy similar to that of quantum field theory in the shape of the standard model.

[Delta1212]

I found discussion online stating Einstein was really an idiot. A lot of this is saying the fact that we CAN go past the speed of light means that the idea that we could not means that Einstein was stupid or the fact he was a German means he was an idiot since all Germany cares about is destroying Jews. Even if his old Research and ideas are today proven incorrect does that necessarily mean hes a complete moron or just that we are improving on ideas he created?

Just to point out, Einstein was ethnically Jewish...

[ajb]

Just to point out, Einstein was ethnically Jewish...

And that was probably the main reason he left Germany for the USA.

[Lightmeow]

I found discussion online stating Einstein was really an idiot. A lot of this is saying the fact that we CAN go past the speed of light means that the idea that we could not means that Einstein was stupid or the fact he was a German means he was an idiot since all Germany cares about is destroying Jews. Even if his old Research and ideas are today proven incorrect does that necessarily mean hes a complete moron or just that we are improving on ideas he created?

Was Newton wrong because he didn't thoroughly explain gravity? I don't think so. Same thing with Einstein. Sorry, but I don't think one person can do it all.

[studiot]

 

Sorry, but I don't think one person can do it all.

 

 

+1