[BotByte]

It seems that the Speed of Light, what is the limit of space+time travel, has been broken.
 
So E=mc^2 is total BS
 
Source
 
Discuss.

 

[Byakushiki]

So all we need now is for them to create a slipspace drive from this and off we go in space exploration. Can't be that hard to convert something the size of a Terran Battlecruiser into these particles.
 
Which just reminded me of these lines.
"So all we need is orbit capable transport and the single most expensive piece of equipment made by man. How?"
"As a soldier in the field, I'd have no way to access those kind of materials. A good place to look would be, oh say...The nearest nonexistent launch site for the nonexistent Sabre Program, dismissed by three administrations as preposterous rumors? And in which our newest member was certainly never a pilot."

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

It seems that the Speed of Light, what is the limit of space+time travel, has been broken.
 
So E=mc^2 is total BS
 
Source
 
Discuss.

Wait until the tests are scrutinized and the results are deemed repeatable by a third party. No speed limits have been officially broken yet, there's just a strong possibility.
 
I wonder how long it will take for cable manufacturers to capitalize on this? "With our new patented neutrino-plated silver, our cables deliver the music to you before you even know you want to hear it!"

 

[rroseperry]

A link from the post Heidegger posted on another thread sheds some light (so to speak) on the research. It's a little long, makes a digression about pigeon poop, but the physicist writing it gives a lot of reasons to be skeptical.

 

[BotByte]

Well everything is just a theory put into practice.
 
Science can always be changed, there is no concrete rule. - this is something that a lot of HeadFi'ers need to learn. No finger pointing.
 
 
But I found that when Einstein stated that the speed of sound CANNOT be surpassed, or overcome, whichever one, is too hard to name as a fact.

Now it is stated that there have been several past tests that have found the speed of light able to be broken, but the variable of the measurement was too far off and could be called false very easily.
It's just in this day and age where we are able to measure something this great to a certain extent, it's a means of celebration. In a year we will be able to measure twice as much and in ten, twenty times as much as we have just seen.
 
 
I'm wondering if this will open new ideas of the space+time travel theories. Most, if not all, have been limited to the Speed of Light theory, now, who knows what we can accomplish?
 
Or maybe, our world is falling apart at the seams and this is just proof that everything around us is falling like pictures off a wall.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

I'm wondering if this will open new ideas of the space+time travel theories. Most, if not all, have been limited to the Speed of Light theory, now, who knows what we can accomplish?

Only if it's true, which again, it may not be.
 
I'm not sure if you realize that Einstein's theories are supported by years and years of measurements and research. It holds up to a lot of scrutiny. Just because someone measured the speed of a particle more accurately than previously, and that speed might be faster, doesn't mean it is faster or that Einstein was completely off. If and only if other scientists are able to repeat the results in different circumstances, with different equipment, to the same level of accuracy, then it's time to re-evaluate Einstein's theories, not throw them out the window.
 
A scientific theory is never an indomitable fortress, but it takes more than a breeze to sway it.
 
In response to the finger-pointing (or lack thereof), the results of this experiment are fundamentally different than experiments with electrical properties in audio equipment and cables. Relativity and quantum mechanics are frontiers, and change happens all the time. Electricity is pretty well understood.

 

[BotByte]

Quote:

Only if it's true, which again, it may not be.
 
I'm not sure if you realize that Einstein's theories are supported by years and years of measurements and research. It holds up to a lot of scrutiny. Just because someone measured the speed of a particle more accurately than previously, and that speed might be faster, doesn't mean it is faster or that Einstein was completely off. If and only if other scientists are able to repeat the results in different circumstances, with different equipment, to the same level of accuracy, then it's time to re-evaluate Einstein's theories, not throw them out the window.
 
A scientific theory is never an indomitable fortress, but it takes more than a breeze to sway it.

Well that's true. But I also see it as we use his theories to work on his own theories. There isn't too much to stack up against his own products.
 
This is just a small stepping stone in the path, but as the time works, there will be more to come. We have just entered the age where theories can become practice, maybe we can even establish some laws soon.
 
Step by step, we'll make it there sooner or later.

 

[rroseperry]

Theories and laws aren't different levels of realness in science. It's not like a theory will get promoted to a law over time and usage. Here's one of the best explanations I could find online. The whole thing is worth reading (and not too long) but this is the key bit:

Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works. Others delineate law and theory based on mathematics -- Laws are often times mathematically defined (once again, a description of how nature behaves) whereas theories are often non-mathematical. Looking at things this was helps to explain, in part, why physics and chemistry have lots of "laws" whereas biology has few laws (and more theories). In biology, it is very difficult to describe all the complexities of life with "simple" (relatively speaking!) mathematical terms.

And the link I posted above gave many reasons why superluminal particles are not maybe so possible.

(emphasis added)

 

[nikp]

"Einstein lied to us" That is the most ignorant statement I have seen in my life. 
 
Lying is to say something with an intention to deceive. Really? When scientists tried to explain something and their theories were disproven they lied? Why would he deceive us? And his work on special relativity had pushed science forward. Nothing in science is perfect, it's just a way of people trying to understand the works of nature. Einstein deserves respect. I can't believe someone would actually say he lied. 

 

[BotByte]

Quote:

Theories and laws aren't different levels of realness in science. It's not like a theory will get promoted to a law over time and usage. Here's one of the best explanations I could find online. The whole thing is worth reading (and not too long) but this is the key bit: Quote:

Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works. Others delineate law and theory based on mathematics -- Laws are often times mathematically defined (once again, a description of how nature behaves) whereas theories are often non-mathematical. Looking at things this was helps to explain, in part, why physics and chemistry have lots of "laws" whereas biology has few laws (and more theories). In biology, it is very difficult to describe all the complexities of life with "simple" (relatively speaking!) mathematical terms.

And the link I posted above gave many reasons why superluminal particles are not maybe so possible.

(emphasis added)

Did you find a point in what you said?
 
Theories don't just morph into a law, but a law can be defined by a single principle. A theory is a large collection of principals compiled into a single set.
 
I'm saying is that if you can prove a theory, it becomes law.
 
 
But, I'm not a science (anything) in my life. I just have a higher then average knowledge of this stuff.
 
Here's me: "Are not maybe so possible."
 
This is thirteen contradiction in a single portion of a sentence. Quite magnificent to say the least. No offense.
 
 
But everything takes time. We need to watch for any more news for the next, oh, 100 years or so to define anything. Then that can be disproved. I just hope then, the super computer that rules over humanity will be able to simply tell us that each theory it thinks of every nanosecond is wrong and thus destroy the universe as it reaches the Akashic records.

 

[nikp]

Yes, law is a proven theory. Look at what happened in the past. Newton thought that light is a particle then Huygens proved it was a wave (diffraction and interference exists). Well, Planck then introduced his quantum theory. Well, laws is likely to get modified in the future. 

 

[Spareribs]

I kind of doubt that he lied. Einstein was a passionate lover. And so am I.
 
The Heart of Innovation: 35 Awesome Quotes from Einstein

 

[Head Injury]

 

[Parall3l]

...and next thing you know, some one comes out with an experiment that proves silver cables sound better 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

...and next thing you know, some one comes out with an experiment that proves silver cables sound better 

But that's impossible!