Einstein wrong

[blike]

BTW I picked up this book a few days ago. I'll let you know how it is

[JoeDaWolf]

Originally posted by fafalone

Where's the evidence for it?

 

I've seen evidence that the speed of light has not been constant over large timescales. It's also a well known fact that light travels slower through mediums (like air or water), but I haven't read this book... so perhaps you can summarize what evidence the author presented.

 

 

The distance that light travels / time it takes the travel the ditsance < c, but it doesnt mean that the photons are travelling less than the speed of light.

 

The photons have to enter the medium, get absorbed and emmited by all of the particles that stand it the path of the photon, correct? I know that it takes photons around 30,000 years to escape the center of the sun, going through a "random walk."

 

~Wolf

[cHIs-]

If we did figure out traveling faster than light speed, would it make Einstein wrong? i dont know alot about science so im asking, did Einstein say for a fact that it is impossible to travel faster than light? if he didnt say it as a fact then we cant say he was wrong.

[Guest SirTony76]

Unlike most who posted here, I actually read the book.

 

I would actually like to see his essay on it though, the book did not go into enough detail. Does anybody know where these physics archives are on the web that he described in the book?

 

He brought up many interesting perspectives, I've talked with a few guys over at Fermilab, and most of them are at each others necks about this theory.

 

Anybody who says this guy is wrong without a doubt is unscientific. To actually do science, you need to challenge ideas, think of new stuff, and be very creative. Joao thought outside of the box on this one.

 

There are a lot of things in Physics that do not work out right. With the way he described his theory everything works out, except that whole constant speed of light thing. This book is worth the read.

 

Tony

[[Tycho?]]

If we did figure out traveling faster than light speed, would it make Einstein wrong? i dont know alot about science so im asking, did Einstein say for a fact that it is impossible to travel faster than light? if he didnt say it as a fact then we cant say he was wrong.

 

Well I think at this point he couldn't have been completely wrong. His theories have been endlessly tested, but have really held up, with important practical implications. Einstien will probably be "wrong" in the same way Newton was wrong. His theories were very accurate in every way measurable at the time, but there are exceptions where the theories were not accurate, which is why relativity was developed. Relativity will probably turn out to be not totally correct at some point in the future, but that doesn't make Einstien or Newton "wrong".

[budullewraagh]

well, somebody slowed light down to 25km/h and i can almost run that fast :\

[[Tycho?]]

lol

[Flak]

Interesting post. I dont think Einstein is wrong, but I think that speed can go faster than lightspeed, and that photons may have some kind of mass.

[ydoaPs]

you haven't presented ANY evidence to support you. until you do (or even put forth a logical explanation), shut up about it.

[Thales]

He is entitled to his opinion, no matter how wrong and baseless it may be.

 

That said arguing for the sake of arguing shouldn't be condoned either. Photons have no mass and nothing (with mass) can travel faster than the speed of light. If you don't understand why find any site on the web that explains the basis of special relativity. Either that or, as above, please provide evidence, if not, at least some basis for such claims.

[swansont]

He is entitled to his opinion' date=' no matter how wrong and baseless it may be.

[/quote']

 

Yes he is, but he's not entitled to his own facts. In the end, in science, opinion means squat.

[Thales]

True but pointing that out is more productive than telling people to shut up.

[Flak]

He is entitled to his opinion' date=' no matter how wrong and baseless it may be.

 

That said arguing for the sake of arguing shouldn't be condoned either. Photons have no mass and nothing (with mass) can travel faster than the speed of light. If you don't understand why find any site on the web that explains the basis of special relativity. Either that or, as above, please provide evidence, if not, at least some basis for such claims.[/quote']

 

As the Relativity "proof", an object with mass cannot reach the speed of light, nothing to talk about overpass it. Because on ecuation this will give you an infinite amount since light speed is the speed limit used.

 

However if speed limit is higher wont be a problem for a mass object went into the lightspeed and even go over it.

[[Tycho?]]

As the Relativity "proof"' date=' an object with mass cannot reach the speed of light, nothing to talk about overpass it. Because on ecuation this will give you an infinite amount since light speed is the speed limit used.

 

However if speed limit is higher wont be a problem for a mass object went into the lightspeed and even go over it.[/quote']

 

Trouble is, c is the speed limit for massive particles.

[swansont]

As the Relativity "proof"' date=' an object with mass cannot reach the speed of light, nothing to talk about overpass it. Because on ecuation this will give you an infinite amount since light speed is the speed limit used.

 

However if speed limit is higher wont be a problem for a mass object went into the lightspeed and even go over it.[/quote']

 

The equations that more than adequately explain the behavior of massive particles below the speed of light yield an imaginary answer for energy.

 

The problem with a solution that has imaginary energy is that it violates conservation of energy (as the real term goes away) and nobody knows what imaginary energy physically represents.

 

c isn't the speed limit used, as such. It's the limit that naturally falls out of the theory.

[philbo1965uk]

well said sayonara and jakiri.also

god does not play dice is the most profound statement a man of Einsteins massive contribution to physics could say.I wish more people understood its meaning,sadly they only see the words and drift off into the quantom cesspool

[[Tycho?]]

It isn't a massive contribution. It isn't a contribution at all, it was his opinion at the time. His massive contribution was relativity and other work. This dice comment was not backed up by any physics, in fact it was contradicted by physics. Its meaning is pretty clear, since Einstiens opinions on quantum mechanics were well known.

[Sayonara]

Of course, there is the view that he was considering the viability of god and not dice.

[[Tycho?]]

I've never heard that before. If he was talking about the validity of god, then he was being rather abstract about it.

[ydoaPs]

[sarcasm]sayo needs to learn to use the sarcasm tags[/sarcasm]

[Sayonara]

Or not, as the case may be.

[Severian]

Unlike most who posted here' date=' I actually read the book.

 

I would actually like to see his essay on it though, the book did not go into enough detail. Does anybody know where these physics archives are on the web that he described in the book?

 

He brought up many interesting perspectives, I've talked with a few guys over at Fermilab, and most of them are at each others necks about this theory.

 

Anybody who says this guy is wrong without a doubt is unscientific. To actually do science, you need to challenge ideas, think of new stuff, and be very creative. Joao thought outside of the box on this one.

 

There are a lot of things in Physics that do not work out right. With the way he described his theory everything works out, except that whole constant speed of light thing. This book is worth the read.

 

Tony[/quote']

 

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305457

 

I've met him - he's a bit of a loudmouth, making claims which he doesn't really live up to. The idea is OK, but a little bit unbelievable, and frankly rather uninteresting except for the fringes of the observable universe. The papers make a lot less outrageous claims than the book, which is frankly just an exercise in sensationalism (sad that it works...).

[Kedas]

Of course, there is the view that he was considering the viability of god and not dice.

 

The way I always understood it is that there is an explanation behind things.

as far as I know he was convinced everything was based on some 'simple rules'.

[5614]

student: "do you think that physics explains everything?"

 

physics teacher: "yes physics explains everything.... and for anything else theres God!"

[Kedas]

physics teacher: "yes physics explains everything.... and for anything else theres Einstein!"