/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3193802]

Why do scientists just accept that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit in the universe?
If the theory predicts very strange or unexplainable things over light speed, shouldn't the theory be corrected instead? Why assume it's just the way the universe is? Isn't it much more likely that our understanding is just incomplete?

[Anonymous No.3193806]

Maybe you should first learn modern physics-theories before you question them. However, this will take a lot of time and requires some intelligence.

[Anonymous No.3193807]

>>3193802
Do you have any idea of what you are talking about? seriously?

[Anonymous No.3193809]

It's not a "speed limit", it's a fundamental construct of nature. Reality .. respect it.

[Anonymous No.3193818]

>Why do scientists just accept that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit in the universe?
Because the only theory capable of explaining certain phenomena predicts it.
>If the theory predicts very strange or unexplainable things over light speed, shouldn't the theory be corrected instead?
Of course.
>Why assume it's just the way the universe is?
Nobody "assumes" it. It's the *current* *best known* explanation of certain situations.
>Isn't it much more likely that our understanding is just incomplete?
Those propositions are orthogonal.

[Anonymous No.3193827]

>Why do scientists just accept that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit in the universe?
It falls right out of the theory as a fundamental prediction, and that theory has stood up to many tests that no other theory can so far. That's why we believe it.

>If the theory predicts very strange or unexplainable things over light speed, shouldn't the theory be corrected instead? Why assume it's just the way the universe is? Isn't it much more likely that our understanding is just incomplete?
No. You see, in science, we TEST theories. You don't just throw them out because they're unintuitice. Relativity is the simplest theory we've found that matches what actually happens. You know, in reality, as observed by experiment.

If you have a better theory that can replicate all the evidence that only relativity can account for so far, and then some, feel free to publish and collect your Nobel prize.

[Anonymous No.3193843]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=431743367572806694#

Everything is just a theory. In science, there is no absolute truth. The speed limit of light is a well established theory, and there is certainly some merit to it. That doesn't mean it has to be the whole story. The truly scientific mind must question everything.

[Anonymous No.3193848]

>>3193843
>The truly scientific mind must question everything.
Sure. Of which OP's is not an example.

[Anonymous No.3193860]

>>3193848
well obviously you have to understand a theory to be able to question it... without looking like a total retard

[Anonymous No.3193876]

>>3193860
It's like the difference between a master jazz musician playing free jazz and a 2 year old mindlessly hitting notes on a piano.

[Anonymous No.3193880]

>>3193876
That's... a really good metaphor.

[Anonymous No.3193907]

ITT: hivemind

Groupthink and submission to authority like this is what holds real progress back. Think outside the box for once in your lives. Question everything.

[Anonymous No.3193934]

>>3193907
see
>>3193876
>>3193860

[Anonymous No.3193942]

>>3193907
I believe if you had actually read this thread and thought about what people where saying, you would have realized that the only post that claimed what you were proposing is impossible is this one >>3193809. Every other post has attempted to explain why we arrived at the theory we have, and why we use it, and that it's possible there are other theories. Your emotional antagonism makes me think that your mind is not analytical or studious enough to ever understand enough about relativity to be able to disprove it, or make any argument against it that isn't just an inane, illogical emotional outburst.

[Anonymous No.3193950]

>>3193942

Wow, spoken like a true autist.

[Anonymous No.3193964]

>>3193950
Now OP is going to go into "lol I was acting retarded on purpose to troll you" mode

[Anonymous No.3193967]

>>3193907
Rejecting hivemind reality - substituting own

[Anonymous No.3193980]

Tachyons, bitch. Learn to science fiction.

[Anonymous No.3193989]

Think of the two ends of a branch, far apart, now bend the branch so the two ends are touching.

Yeah, I just blew your mind.

[Anonymous No.3193994]

>>3193980
>fiction

[Anonymous No.3194010]

>>3193994

I'm pretty sure I said that.... let me check.
..
>Tachyons, bitch. Learn to science fiction.

yeah, I did.

[Anonymous No.3194024]

>>3193994
Science fiction can be a fantastic source of inspiration. It might be hard for you to understand, but science involves a great deal of creative problem solving.

[Anonymous No.3194020]

>>3193989

Not so fast Dr. Spock. Wouldn't the tidal forces squish me?

[Anonymous No.3194040]

>>3194024

O RLY? Tell me moar!

[Anonymous No.3194042]

>>3194010

Making your comment relevant because...?

[Anonymous No.3194043]

>>3194024
people would probably have laughed their asses back in the day off if you had proposed that Jules Verne's "A trip to the moon" would become a reality.

[Anonymous No.3194050]

>>3194020
There's no water involved

[Anonymous No.3194058]

>>3194042

R U SRS? 'theoretical particles that travel faster than the speed of light'? .......or do you live under a bridge and ask riddles??????

[Anonymous No.3194059]

>>3194043
>antigravity
>natives on the moon

PROTIP: They still would.

[Anonymous No.3194064]

>>3194050

Okay.. I'll do it! But I reserve the right to sue you if I get split into a good and evil twin set.

[Anonymous No.3194063]

>>3194058

Again,
>fiction

Gb2 /x/ or /lit/ if you can't understand the difference between science and fiction.

[Anonymous No.3194084]

>>3194064
If you run into evil T'Pol tell her I can help with that pon farr issue

[Anonymous No.3194092]

>>3194063

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Tachyon.html

Troll somebody who doesn't know how to Google.
LOLZ

[Anonymous No.3194107]

It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence.

before you question that the speed of light being the speed limit, find something that travels faster than the speed of light.

[Anonymous No.3194110]

>>3194107
>It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence.

But there are plenty of theorists who work on things that we will probably never have the means to verify by experiment before they die of old age, if ever.

[Anonymous No.3194158]

>>3193827
I don't question your claim that scientific hypothesis is first proven before taken as theory. But do you know a good website that proves Second law of thermodynamics? - I'll clarify what I mean by it (no troll-physics intended). Particularly I am interested in the proof of the "law" taking into account effects related to energy band diagrams.

[Anonymous No.3194178]

>>3194110
name one

[Anonymous No.3194181]

>>3194158
but... you can't prove a theory... just DISprove it.

[Anonymous No.3194187]

You guys clearly aren't taking the negative zone into consideration.

[Anonymous No.3194447]

>>3194181
Or define the boundaries of that theory and show that reality is within this boundaries. When I was writing about the energy band diagrams what I meant is that I found there to be a seemingly way of violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

As an example first chose the relevant heat transfer phenomena which are: conduction, convection, radiation, electron emission, gravitational waves.

Conduction is obviously not getting to violate anything, neither will convection (the macro scale equation is nearly the same as conduction).

Radiation, well here are some nonlinearities involved but for a simple time invariant case it's pretty obvious from the very fundamental equations it will not violate anything either.

Gravitational is ridiculously weak so we just neglect it straight away.

So what happens to electron transfer?