Notices
Results 1 to 65 of 65
Like Tree23Likes
  • 4 Post By AlexG
  • 1 Post By billvon
  • 1 Post By billvon
  • 1 Post By AlexG
  • 2 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By billvon
  • 1 Post By AlexG
  • 1 Post By Geometrogenesis
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 4 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By Harold14370
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By KALSTER
  • 2 Post By tk421

Thread: Science vs. myth: What if we could travel faster than the speed of light?

  1. #1 Science vs. myth: What if we could travel faster than the speed of light? 
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,095
    Just something 'fun' a friend sent to me, that I thought you all might enjoy discussing...HowStuffWorks "What if you traveled faster than the speed of light?" (this is three pages, fyi)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Didn't we just have a thread on this? A meaningless question of ' if the laws of physics didn't work the way they worked, how would the laws of physics work'?


    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,095
    @ AlexG...Since this is more of a ‘fun to ponder’ kind of topic, I meant to put it into the alternative/fringe/pseudoscience section. To your point, Alex...yes, time travel is currently thought to be impossible, because we know it's been proven that a single photon can't travel faster than the speed of light. But, we can still kick around the 'what if's' and have fun with the hypotheticals ...THUS, this should be moved to the section appropriate for that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,095
    Ok...a fun question but I'm curious just the same.If it's been proven that particles can travel at HALF the speed of light, will humans ever be able to? Would it cause harm to us if we found a way, do you think?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Ok...a fun question but I'm curious just the same.If it's been proven that particles can travel at HALF the speed of light, will humans ever be able to?
    Nothing would stop us, beyond needing enough energy/reaction mass to do so. If we had enough antimatter, for example, it would likely be possible.

    Would it cause harm to us if we found a way, do you think?
    There are lots of things that COULD cause us harm. Hitting even a grain of dust at those speeds would vaporize us. But assuming our path was clear we could go that speed without ill effects. It would take us a long time to get to that speed (a year at a constant 1G acceleration) and just as long to stop - but we could get to nearby stars in a decade or so.
    wegs likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Ok...a fun question but I'm curious just the same.If it's been proven that particles can travel at HALF the speed of light, will humans ever be able to?
    Nothing would stop us, beyond needing enough energy/reaction mass to do so. If we had enough antimatter, for example, it would likely be possible.

    Would it cause harm to us if we found a way, do you think?
    There are lots of things that COULD cause us harm. Hitting even a grain of dust at those speeds would vaporize us. But assuming our path was clear we could go that speed without ill effects. It would take us a long time to get to that speed (a year at a constant 1G acceleration) and just as long to stop - but we could get to nearby stars in a decade or so.
    Unfortunately...it most likely will never happen..the idea of 'time travel.' For a number of reasons, really...not withstanding that the odds of having a perfectly clear path, are pretty slim.

    Here's an interesting link, that speaks to the fact that it will always remain just a 'fun' thing to chat about. ;=)
    Interesting, it states that even if a space craft could be created to travel near the speed of light , it wouldn't be able to transport humans.

    Super-Fast Space Travel Would Kill You in Minutes

    thanks for your answer, billvon, and taking my 'fun thread' seriously.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Here's an interesting link, that speaks to the fact that it will always remain just a 'fun' thing to chat about. ;=)
    Interesting, it states that even if a space craft could be created to travel near the speed of light , it wouldn't be able to transport humans.
    There are ways around that. You can pretty easily deflect charged particles with a strong magnetic field - and if they're not already ionized, you can ionize the path in front of you. This would require a huge amount of energy, of course, but we're already outside what science can do today.

    If you want to go even faster consider an Alcubierre drive; fundamentally a "warp drive" capable of stretching and contracting space to allow you to travel at normal speeds while a bubble around you travels faster than light.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Here's an interesting link, that speaks to the fact that it will always remain just a 'fun' thing to chat about. ;=)
    Interesting, it states that even if a space craft could be created to travel near the speed of light , it wouldn't be able to transport humans.
    There are ways around that. You can pretty easily deflect charged particles with a strong magnetic field - and if they're not already ionized, you can ionize the path in front of you. This would require a huge amount of energy, of course, but we're already outside what science can do today.

    If you want to go even faster consider an Alcubierre drive; fundamentally a "warp drive" capable of stretching and contracting space to allow you to travel at normal speeds while a bubble around you travels faster than light.
    the question nobody is asking here is whether the robust yet delicate chemical processes of Life could survive near-SOL motion?

    even under conditions of perfect shielding from the outside, engine radiation, et al.. What would we find in the cockpit after a trip to Mars at 50% SOL?

    Weary but healthy (albeit younger that normally expected) astronauts?

    .. or space-suits full of chemical goo? The goo isn't even "rotting" because the bacteria have been completely deconstructed as well ..??

    donnie

    stick to the truth.. doesn't matter if that makes for boring sci-fi movies..
    Last edited by drom9090; August 23rd, 2013 at 01:00 PM. Reason: spelling
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,849
    Quote Originally Posted by drom9090 View Post
    the question nobody is asking here is whether the robust yet delicate chemical processes of Life could survive near-SOL motion?
    What?
    How does mere speed affect "delicate chemical processes"?

    stick to the truth.
    Quite.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by drom9090 View Post
    the question nobody is asking here is whether the robust yet delicate chemical processes of Life could survive near-SOL motion?
    The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. If those chemical processes work fine on Earth, they will work fine in the rest frame of the space craft at near-SOL motion.

    What would we find in the cockpit after a trip to Mars at 50% SOL?
    Two astronauts, alive and kicking.

    stick to the truth.. doesn't matter if that makes for boring sci-fi movies..
    The truth is quite simply that in purely inertial frames you cannot tell whether you are at rest or not unless you have an outside point of reference to compare against. That means that all physical and chemical processes always remain the same, even at 1/2 c.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; August 23rd, 2013 at 02:00 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by drom9090 View Post
    the question nobody is asking here is whether the robust yet delicate chemical processes of Life could survive near-SOL motion?
    Sure. Why wouldn't it? Life doesn't care about the speed its going at - it only cares about acceleration.

    even under conditions of perfect shielding from the outside, engine radiation, et al.. What would we find in the cockpit after a trip to Mars at 50% SOL?
    If you shot by the Earth and then Mars ten minutes later at 50% the speed of light? The guy wouldn't even notice the speed.

    If you tried to accelerate to 50% of the speed of light before you got to Mars? You'd be crushed by the acceleration. Even at 20G's (barely survivable for short periods of time) you'd only be going 2% of the speed of light by the halfway point - and that's assuming Mars was on the other side of the sun.

    If you accelerated to 50% of the speed of light over six months? It would feel like normal Earth gravity to you. No worries.

    .. or space-suits full of chemical goo?
    Why would there be "chemical goo?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    309
    This is all, of course, assuming that Nasa's "warp drive" thing will never work. If we used it to travel FTL, though, time would apparently move backwards for us, though in actuality in would progress normally (our frame or that of our start or end points). You wouldn't time travel, you would just pass the photons that started at the same time as you, so the photons that reached you would have originated before your journey began. In the forward direction, time would appear to fast forward, as it would take less and less time for light from the planet to reach you. At 10c, one week on the ship would cause you to see 10 weeks of progress at your destination.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by drom9090 View Post
    the question nobody is asking here is whether the robust yet delicate chemical processes of Life could survive near-SOL motion?
    The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. If those chemical processes work fine on Earth, they will work fine in the rest frame of the space craft at near-SOL motion.

    What would we find in the cockpit after a trip to Mars at 50% SOL?
    Two astronauts, alive and kicking.

    stick to the truth.. doesn't matter if that makes for boring sci-fi movies..
    The truth is quite simply that in purely inertial frames you cannot tell whether you are at rest or not unless you have an outside point of reference to compare against. That means that all physical and chemical processes always remain the same, even at 1/2 c.
    That's not the truth ... that's the theory ... a theory using classical 'continuous' rather than discrete quantum assumptions.
    Yes the theory has held true experimentally for a lot of conditions that do not have a whole lot to do with complex biological systems.

    If you can't deduce the living biological systems from the classical motion laws of physics alone,
    how can you deduce the effects of c/2 on a biological system from classical physics laws alone?

    (Did I already mention the thing about SR/GR and QM not yet being compatible?)

    To my knowledge we have no experimental evidence whatsoever of living flesh ever moving at 1/2 c.
    To my knowledge we have no experimental evidence even of the effects 1/2c on simple chemical oscillators.

    We DO have evidence that biological processes do NOT work the same in outer space as they do on earth.
    Deteriorating bone structures under zero g conditions -- at virtual 'rest' velocities.

    Just how tied 'life' is to the conditions present on earth is very much a matter of debate..
    I'm presuming that the tie is much greater -- the event limit of life is much smaller -- than you seem to presume.

    I can put it another way.. YOU get to go first.


    donnie


    ps.. I'm also giving you first dibs on traveling to Alpha Centauri through a wormhole .. no.. really.. I insist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by drom9090 View Post
    That's not the truth ... that's the theory ... a theory using classical 'continuous' rather than discrete quantum assumptions.
    It is both the theory and the truth. Astronauts aboard the ISS are moving about 17,000 mph faster than us. And aside from the effects of zero gravity, and the usual risks of spaceflight (radiation etc) they suffer no ill effects from the speed.

    But that's nothing. We are all moving at 66,000 mph as we orbit the Sun. And we don't see people get sick from that.

    But even that's nothing. We are all moving at about 45,000 MPH as the Sun drifts out of the plane of the galaxy. That means that occasionally those speeds subtract and we see speeds relative to other stars closer to zero, and sometimes they add and we hit over 100,000 MPH. And people don't get sick and then recover when the planet slows down again.

    And even that's slow. We are moving about 475,000 MPH as we orbit the center of the Galaxy.

    Which speed is "right?" All of them. And none of them matter to our biology.


    We DO have evidence that biological processes do NOT work the same in outer space as they do on earth.
    Deteriorating bone structures under zero g conditions -- at virtual 'rest' velocities.
    Nonsense. Someone on a space station spun at 1G would experience the same bone growth as someone living on Earth. Likewise, someone living on Earth under zero-G (say, someone who lived underwater) would experience the same bone density loss. Even bed-bound patients experience it, because their bones do not have to do as much work resisting gravity.
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Junior anticorncob28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nebraska, USA
    Posts
    291
    time travel is currently thought to be impossible, because we know it's been proven that a single photon can't travel faster than the speed of light.
    But that doesn't mean time travel to the past is impossible, it only shows we can't do it that way. Perhaps that is why you said "currently thought" to be impossible?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    If you can't deduce the living biological systems from the classical motion laws of physics alone,
    how can you deduce the effects of c/2 on a biological system from classical physics laws alone?
    First of all, it helps to know the laws of physics and what they mean. You don't appear to.

    To my knowledge we have no experimental evidence whatsoever of living flesh ever moving at 1/2 c.
    To my knowledge we have no experimental evidence even of the effects 1/2c on simple chemical oscillators.
    Of course we do. We are all moving at well over 1/2 c with respect to something in the universe. You seem to think that velocity is some kind of absolute thing. It's not. It's relative.

    We DO have evidence that biological processes do NOT work the same in outer space as they do on earth.
    Factors such as the presence of an atmosphere and gravity do indeed affect biological processes. What does that have to do with relative velocities.

    Deteriorating bone structures under zero g conditions -- at virtual 'rest' velocities.
    Zero g conditions have nothing to do with what you call 'virtual rest velocities. All velocity is relative. There's things we're at relative rest to at the same time we're moving at considerable fractions of the speed of light with regard to other things.

    Just how tied 'life' is to the conditions present on earth is very much a matter of debate..
    I'm presuming that the tie is much greater -- the event limit of life is much smaller -- than you seem to presume.
    We've had people living off earth for fairly considerable periods of time. Environmental conditions certainly effect living organisms, but relative velocity isn't one of them.
    John Galt likes this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by drom9090 View Post
    the question nobody is asking here is whether the robust yet delicate chemical processes of Life could survive near-SOL motion?
    Sure. Why wouldn't it? Life doesn't care about the speed its going at - it only cares about acceleration.
    Clocks certainly care about the speed they are going. And what is a biological system if it is not a very complex system of chemical clocks?
    Even if you can get from physics through chemistry to biology SOMEWHAT via QM, the last I heard, SR isn't QM savvy.

    even under conditions of perfect shielding from the outside, engine radiation, et al.. What would we find in the cockpit after a trip to Mars at 50% SOL?
    If you shot by the Earth and then Mars ten minutes later at 50% the speed of light? The guy wouldn't even notice the speed.

    If you tried to accelerate to 50% of the speed of light before you got to Mars? You'd be crushed by the acceleration. Even at 20G's (barely survivable for short periods of time) you'd only be going 2% of the speed of light by the halfway point - and that's assuming Mars was on the other side of the sun.

    If you accelerated to 50% of the speed of light over six months? It would feel like normal Earth gravity to you. No worries.
    Yeah.. I get the whole velocity vs acceleration thing..
    My premise wasn't that a suitably large dv at ~c/2 kills...
    That's the free cherry on top of the soda.

    Nor did i reference gravity.. We do know some bio-systems (e.g., biped vertebrates) have a preference
    for normal Earth g over zero g.

    What experimental evidence is there that bio-systems don't have a preference for near-zero velocities nowhere near even 1%c ?

    Are you assuming that the astronauts will be just peachy because the passengers on Einstein's c-train
    were just peachy and able to read their clocks and rigid rods? Wasn't SR a THOUGHT experiment?
    Constructed using classical 'continuous' assumptions?

    All I'm saying is: accelerate your pet gerbil to c/2 and THEN call me in the next decade with the experimental evidence.

    .. or space-suits full of chemical goo?
    Why would there be "chemical goo?"
    If after the biological processes break down, the water molecules don't break down into gases
    or centrifuge off to their own little corners of the suits, "goo" (as opposed to "powder" or "chunk" or "vapor")
    it seems to be the most likely apt description of the remains.

    donnie
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,849
    Quote Originally Posted by drom9090 View Post
    Clocks certainly care about the speed they are going.
    Huh?
    How do you work that out?

    What experimental evidence is there that bio-systems don't have a preference for near-zero velocities nowhere near even 1%c ?
    Can you point to any bio-systems that actually exist at near-zero velocities?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    What experimental evidence is there that bio-systems don't have a preference for near-zero velocities nowhere near even 1%c ?
    Near zero relative to what?
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by drom9090 View Post
    Clocks certainly care about the speed they are going.
    No, they don't.
    Yeah.. I get the whole velocity vs acceleration thing..
    My premise wasn't that a suitably large dv at ~c/2 kills...
    A suitably large dV/dT (i.e. acceleration) does kill. A suitably large V does not.
    Nor did i reference gravity.. We do know some bio-systems (e.g., biped vertebrates) have a preference
    for normal Earth g over zero g.
    Agreed.

    What experimental evidence is there that bio-systems don't have a preference for near-zero velocities nowhere near even 1%c ?
    Because biological systems (all systems, actually) show zero-zip-nada dependence on absolute velocity. It's like asking "if your neighbor listens to enough Bruce Springsteen, won't you eventually die?" You don't have to test this premise to have a pretty good assurance that it's not true.

    Are you assuming that the astronauts will be just peachy because the passengers on Einstein's c-train
    were just peachy and able to read their clocks and rigid rods? Wasn't SR a THOUGHT experiment?
    No, it is an actual experiment, and you verify it every time you check your GPS location on your phone.

    All I'm saying is: accelerate your pet gerbil to c/2 and THEN call me in the next decade with the experimental evidence.
    Sure - just get us the antimatter and containment systems.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    6
    yes its possible to create as such.
    This was found theoritically possible due to electromagnetic wave having speed greater than that of light....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by drom9090 View Post
    If you can't deduce the living biological systems from the classical motion laws of physics alone,
    how can you deduce the effects of c/2 on a biological system from classical physics laws alone?
    I explained that to you already - locally within the space craft, everything is at rest. The laws of physics and chemistry are the exact same in all inertial frames, regardless of their states of relative motion. Thus there is no difference if the astronaut is at rest or moves at c/2.

    That's not the truth ... that's the theory ... a theory using classical 'continuous' rather than discrete quantum assumptions.
    Again, quantum mechanics works the same in all inertial frames; we can write down relativistic quantum field theories for three of the four fundamental interactions. Since we are dealing with inertial frames, there is no gravity present.

    To my knowledge we have no experimental evidence whatsoever of living flesh ever moving at 1/2 c.
    To my knowledge we have no experimental evidence even of the effects 1/2c on simple chemical oscillators.
    That's incorrect, as AlexG has already mentioned. Also, what we do have in addition is experimental evidence for the validity of Special Relativity, which tells us that the laws of nature are the same in all inertial frames.

    We DO have evidence that biological processes do NOT work the same in outer space as they do on earth.
    That is not correct; they work the exact same way.

    Deteriorating bone structures under zero g conditions -- at virtual 'rest' velocities.
    Changes in bone density is an effect of zero gravity, not relative velocity.

    Just how tied 'life' is to the conditions present on earth is very much a matter of debate..
    No, it isn't. The matter of debate is the effects of zero gravity and high radiation environments on an astronaut's health. That is quite different from your assertion.

    I can put it another way.. YOU get to go first.
    If I was still young, single and unattached, and someone gave me the opportunity, I wouldn't even think twice about it...

    Clocks certainly care about the speed they are going.
    No they don't. Locally, clocks in inertial frames always go at exactly one second per second. All that changes is the geometric relationship between such frames in space-time. That is what SR is about.

    the last I heard, SR isn't QM savvy.
    You heard wrong. SR and QM and quite compatible. Examples are Quantum Electrodynamics, the Dirac equation for relativistic fermions etc etc

    What experimental evidence is there that bio-systems don't have a preference for near-zero velocities nowhere near even 1%c ?
    This question is posed wrongly. You might as well ask what evidence is there that I do not in fact have an invisible pink unicorn in my garden ? It is not answerable or falsifiable.

    Are you assuming that the astronauts will be just peachy because the passengers on Einstein's c-train
    were just peachy and able to read their clocks and rigid rods? Wasn't SR a THOUGHT experiment?
    No, SR and GR are both experimentally well verified :

    Modern Tests of Relativity

    And the theory tells us that the astronauts will be just fine.

    If after the biological processes break down
    They don't, see above.
    John Galt and wegs like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Binod Nepal View Post
    This was found theoritically possible due to electromagnetic wave having speed greater than that of light....
    Electromagnetic waves do not have speeds greater than that of light. The assertion is self-contradictory, because light is an electromagnetic wave !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,095
    Not sure if u were serious about mentioning wormholes, donnie...?Even if we could make all of this happen that we're discussing here, going through a wormhole sounds like a suicide mission.
    0_o

    What we know of the wormhole theory, the verdict is out on if humans could ever really pass through one at all.
    Last edited by wegs; August 25th, 2013 at 01:00 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by drom9090 View Post
    If you can't deduce the living biological systems from the classical motion laws of physics alone,
    how can you deduce the effects of c/2 on a biological system from classical physics laws alone?
    I explained that to you already - locally within the space craft, everything is at rest. The laws of physics and chemistry are the exact same in all inertial frames, regardless of their states of relative motion. Thus there is no difference if the astronaut is at rest or moves at c/2.
    You are explaining what you are explaining quite nicely. You're just not answering the question that I asked. First of all.
    Secondly, it WAS/IS a question.. not a declaration that I think there's something fundamentally wrong with SR..
    only that perhaps the inferences from it might not be as dependable as its being presumed vis a vis SOL travel.

    That's not the truth ... that's the theory ... a theory using classical 'continuous' rather than discrete quantum assumptions.
    Again, quantum mechanics works the same in all inertial frames; we can write down relativistic quantum field theories for three of the four fundamental interactions. Since we are dealing with inertial frames, there is no gravity present.
    None.

    To my knowledge we have no experimental evidence whatsoever of living flesh ever moving at 1/2 c.
    To my knowledge we have no experimental evidence even of the effects 1/2c on simple chemical oscillators.
    That's incorrect, as AlexG has already mentioned. Also, what we do have in addition is experimental evidence for the validity of Special Relativity, which tells us that the laws of nature are the same in all inertial frames.
    Haven't come across the AlexG post yet. And again, proof of SR for particles, EM field-effects, etc.. not what I asked.

    We DO have evidence that biological processes do NOT work the same in outer space as they do on earth.
    That is not correct; they work the exact same way.

    Deteriorating bone structures under zero g conditions -- at virtual 'rest' velocities.
    Changes in bone density is an effect of zero gravity, not relative velocity.
    Isn't that what I said??

    Just how tied 'life' is to the conditions present on earth is very much a matter of debate..
    No, it isn't. The matter of debate is the effects of zero gravity and high radiation environments on an astronaut's health. That is quite different from your assertion.
    The viability of life under non-Earth-like conditions is NOT a matter of debate? Astro-biologists have it all figgered out?

    I can put it another way.. YOU get to go first.
    If I was still young, single and unattached, and someone gave me the opportunity, I wouldn't even think twice about it...
    I expect real evidence long before there's any real opportunity. I'm just playing the skeptic.

    Clocks certainly care about the speed they are going.
    No they don't. Locally, clocks in inertial frames always go at exactly one second per second.
    All that changes is the geometric relationship between such frames in space-time. That is what SR is about.
    "caring" = changes in the geometric relationship between such frames in space-time.

    the last I heard, SR isn't QM savvy.
    You heard wrong. SR and QM and quite compatible. Examples are Quantum Electrodynamics, the Dirac equation for relativistic fermions etc etc
    my bad.. I originally wrote "GR", not "SR" and then changed it without paying full attention to the difference it made in the statements.

    What experimental evidence is there that bio-systems don't have a preference for near-zero velocities nowhere near even 1%c ?
    This question is posed wrongly. You might as well ask what evidence is there that I do not in fact have an invisible pink unicorn in my garden ? It is not answerable or falsifiable.
    I don't see any difference in the questions posed.. the answer to both is zilch unless you've been checking for unicorns lately.

    Are you assuming that the astronauts will be just peachy because the passengers on Einstein's c-train
    were just peachy and able to read their clocks and rigid rods? Wasn't SR a THOUGHT experiment?
    No, SR and GR are both experimentally well verified :
    Yeah.. a thought experiment later verified by numerous experiments -- none of which involve(d) life-forms moving at c/2.

    Modern Tests of Relativity

    And the theory tells us that the astronauts will be just fine.

    If after the biological processes break down
    They don't, see above.
    One more time...

    I have not questioned SR (per se) or GR..
    I questioned whether SR will hold for complex bio-systems moving a c/2..
    Apparently everybody thinks it will.. all good and well.. which is obviously why nobody is asking my question.


    donnie
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,849
    Quote Originally Posted by drom9090 View Post
    I questioned whether SR will hold for complex bio-systems moving a c/2.
    Persistently asking a stupid question doesn't make it any less stupid.

    Apparently everybody thinks it will.
    No, we know it will.

    which is obviously why nobody is asking my question.
    Because we're not stupid enough to ask perhaps.

    As has been pointed out either directly or indirectly more than once: we're already "moving at c/2".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Not sure if u were serious about mentioning wormholes, donnie...?Even if we could make all of this happen that we're discussing here, going through a wormhole sounds like a suicide mission.
    0_o

    What we know of the wormhole theory, the verdict is out on if humans could ever really pass through one at all.
    Serious doubts about all rubbery classical models. in and out of wormholes.. falling into black holes.. popping out of white ones.. Alive.


    donnie
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    What experimental evidence is there that bio-systems don't have a preference for near-zero velocities nowhere near even 1%c ?
    Near zero relative to what?
    Rest state relative to Earth.. much nearer zero that c, but not a good choice of terms. Sorry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by drom9090 View Post
    That's not the truth ... that's the theory ... a theory using classical 'continuous' rather than discrete quantum assumptions.
    It is both the theory and the truth.


    Astronauts aboard the ISS are moving about 17,000 mph faster than us. And aside from the effects of zero gravity, and the usual risks of spaceflight (radiation etc) they suffer no ill effects from the speed.

    But that's nothing. We are all moving at 66,000 mph as we orbit the Sun. And we don't see people get sick from that.

    But even that's nothing. We are all moving at about 45,000 MPH as the Sun drifts out of the plane of the galaxy. That means that occasionally those speeds subtract and we see speeds relative to other stars closer to zero, and sometimes they add and we hit over 100,000 MPH. And people don't get sick and then recover when the planet slows down again.

    And even that's slow. We are moving about 475,000 MPH as we orbit the center of the Galaxy.

    Which speed is "right?" All of them. And none of them matter to our biology.
    all of which constitutes Earth's overall velocity and that of Earth's gravitational field along with it. The image I had was moving c/2 relative to Earth and within Earth's gravitational field -- It should have some effect (?) since the gravity accelerates the inertial frame of the 'ship'. But the effect would be very short lived and very weak.. not something prolonged enough to affect the astronaut(s) severely unless the gravity field was significantly extended or enhanced.

    We DO have evidence that biological processes do NOT work the same in outer space as they do on earth.
    Deteriorating bone structures under zero g conditions -- at virtual 'rest' velocities.
    Nonsense. Someone on a space station spun at 1G would experience the same bone growth as someone living on Earth. Likewise, someone living on Earth under zero-G (say, someone who lived underwater) would experience the same bone density loss. Even bed-bound patients experience it, because their bones do not have to do as much work resisting gravity.
    That example was given to illustrate that there have been unanticipated unknowns in space travel.. it was not directly to do with the velocity question oer se,

    donnie
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by drom9090 View Post
    all of which constitutes Earth's overall velocity and that of Earth's gravitational field along with it. The image I had was moving c/2 relative to Earth and within Earth's gravitational field
    Your ship would be instantly destroyed if you were moving at C/2 anywhere near Earth's gravitational field from the high concentration of gas leaking out of our atmosphere. However, if you were to somehow fly through a completely evacuated section of space, you would not notice anything, just as Apollo astronauts do not notice their rapid entry into Earth's gravitational field (until they hit the atmosphere, that is.)

    It should have some effect (?) since the gravity accelerates the inertial frame of the 'ship'. But the effect would be very short lived and very weak.. not something prolonged enough to affect the astronaut(s) severely unless the gravity field was significantly extended or enhanced.
    The only effects you would see from gravity are tidal effects. But that's a function of gravity, not speed.
    wegs likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    As has been pointed out either directly or indirectly more than once: we're already "moving at c/2".
    Is that relative to ALL matter in the universe or some sub-set of it?

    donnie
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Rest state relative to Earth.. much nearer zero that c, but not a good choice of terms. Sorry.
    Is that relative to ALL matter in the universe or some sub-set of it?
    Relative to all matter in the universe, we are moving at a whole bunch of different velocities.

    Relative to the Andromeda Galaxy, we are moving at 190 miles/second.

    Relative to the center of the Milky Way galaxy (ours) we are moving at 486,000 miles per hour

    Relative to the speed of muon neutrinos, we're moving at 670,616,629 miles per hour.

    There is no absolute velocity you can point to and say 'that's how fast we are moving'.

    Do you see how meaningless your statement is?
    wegs likes this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,849
    Quote Originally Posted by drom9090 View Post
    Is that relative to ALL matter in the universe or some sub-set of it?
    Well I'm pretty sure that I'm stationary relative to my PC at this moment.
    I'm equally sure that it's not possible to be relatively stationary to "all matter in the universe" NOR moving at any given speed to relative to same.
    What's your point?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Didn't we just have a thread on this? A meaningless question of ' if the laws of physics didn't work the way they worked, how would the laws of physics work'?

    It is a nice thought experiment however which might describe the frame of tachyonic particles. Some string theories absolutely require them.
    wegs likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by drom9090 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Not sure if u were serious about mentioning wormholes, donnie...?Even if we could make all of this happen that we're discussing here, going through a wormhole sounds like a suicide mission.
    0_o

    What we know of the wormhole theory, the verdict is out on if humans could ever really pass through one at all.
    Serious doubts about all rubbery classical models. in and out of wormholes.. falling into black holes.. popping out of white ones.. Alive.


    donnie
    honestly, i find the wormhole theory to be totally stupid (from a space travel perspective). i mean, i get it. but, a 'bridge' that creates a short cut in space travel? um, ok. but...it makes for a good sci fi novel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    edmond oklahoma
    Posts
    4
    what if I could travel faster than the speed of light?i would shoot off from earth on an extraordinary flight.as I was looking out of the front window of my spaceship.it would look like I was looking out the back window,and the image would be flipped.it would also appear to be going in rewind,and physically I would be in a future time.the images I see would only have one dimension,but that would be ok,i never cared for peripheral vision.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by drom9090 View Post
    I have not questioned SR (per se) or GR..
    I questioned whether SR will hold for complex bio-systems moving a c/2..
    Apparently everybody thinks it will.. all good and well.. which is obviously why nobody is asking my question.
    Yeah, that's pretty much it. Physically, there is no difference between a single electron and a "complex bio-system"; they all obey the same laws of physics and chemistry. And those laws are the same in all inertial frames, as SR tells us. Hence SR does not give us reason to believe that an astronaut will turn to goo at c/2 - in fact it pretty much rules that out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5
    I believe it's possible, just ask the top scientist around the U.S.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by myhouseinthewoods View Post
    I believe it's possible, just ask the top scientist around the U.S.
    I did. They all said no.
    anticorncob28 likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by myhouseinthewoods View Post
    I believe it's possible
    You are free to believe whatever you wish; your personal beliefs are of no physical consequence.

    just ask the top scientist around the U.S.
    Scientists will agree with what I told you, because that is basic, established physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    I can only say. "BEAM ME UP SCOTTY"....would be awesome.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Laws said heavier than air machines can't fly. Laws in science are just waiting to be broken, and most will be if mankind survives the next few decades.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by myhouseinthewoods View Post
    I believe it's possible, just ask the top scientist around the U.S.
    Myhouse, I'm a top Canadian scientist eh, and I know it's possible eh, just waiting for to be done. Of course, I'm only tops in my own opinion, but that counts a LOT with me.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Laws said heavier than air machines can't fly.
    What law was that?

    Like so many of your claims, this one is lacking evidence.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Laws said heavier than air machines can't fly.
    What law was that?

    Like so many of your claims, this one is lacking evidence.
    Please provide evidence of the claim you just made against me.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Just something 'fun' a friend sent to me, that I thought you all might enjoy discussing...HowStuffWorks "What if you traveled faster than the speed of light?" (this is three pages, fyi)
    Since it's an hypothetical question, we would need a different type of body.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Just something 'fun' a friend sent to me, that I thought you all might enjoy discussing...HowStuffWorks "What if you traveled faster than the speed of light?" (this is three pages, fyi)
    Since it's an hypothetical question, we would need a different type of body.
    Only according to consensus views.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Laws said heavier than air machines can't fly.
    What law was that?

    Like so many of your claims, this one is lacking evidence.
    Please provide evidence of the claim you just made against me.
    As the one making the affirmative claim, the burden of proof is on you, AiE. As you seem to be unfamiliar with the ways of science, logic, and otherwise rigorous thinking, allow me to educate you. If you were to claim "Santa Claus exists," the burden of providing evidence would be on you, the claimant. It would not be up to us to prove the negative. Our failure to prove a negative would not lend support to your original, undemonstrated claim. The default isn't that you are right until proven wrong. The default is that you have made an unsupported claim until you support it.

    See how it goes? It's simple and logical. That's how empty BS is seen explicitly to be empty BS.

    So support your claim. Which laws said that heavier-than-air objects can't fly? And how did such laws fail to take into account the flight capability of geese?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Please provide evidence of the claim you just made against me.
    You yourself said that your silly "stars" idea was unsupported by evidence.

    You haven't yet provided any evidence of Aristarchus's exile (despite repeated requests).

    Will that do for the moment?

    Now:
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Laws said heavier than air machines can't fly.
    What law was that?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You haven't yet provided any evidence of Aristarchus's exile (despite repeated requests).
    AinE must be confusing Aristarchus of Samos with a different Aristarchus. The librarian, not the astronomer.

    Aristarchus of Samothrace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    One account has him, having contracted an incurable dropsy starving himself to death while in exile on Cyprus
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,095
    I forgot about this thread until recently...and it was designed to be a light-hearted/fun type of thread, with respect to the original topic. That said, I should have erected it in the pseudo-science section; my apologies. It certainly won't offend me, if a mod sees fit to place it in the 'trash' forum, at this point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Laws said heavier than air machines can't fly.
    This claim is grossly wrong; there is no law in physics which says that machines heavier than air can't fly. It is also not a belief people held, because they saw birds ( which are heavier than air ) flying around every day, so they knew all along that there had to be a way to make it work. It was an engineering challenge, no more.

    And the likes of you want to teach us about "real" science ? You are a hypocrite with an ultimately political agenda, no more.

    P.S. This is now the third thread you highjack to proliferate your personal vendetta; and you wonder why people perceive you as antagonistic ?
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Laws said heavier than air machines can't fly.
    What law was that?

    Like so many of your claims, this one is lacking evidence.
    Please provide evidence of the claim you just made against me.
    As the one making the affirmative claim, the burden of proof is on you, AiE. As you seem to be unfamiliar with the ways of science, logic, and otherwise rigorous thinking, allow me to educate you. If you were to claim "Santa Claus exists," the burden of providing evidence would be on you, the claimant. It would not be up to us to prove the negative. Our failure to prove a negative would not lend support to your original, undemonstrated claim. The default isn't that you are right until proven wrong. The default is that you have made an unsupported claim until you support it.

    See how it goes? It's simple and logical. That's how empty BS is seen explicitly to be empty BS.

    So support your claim. Which laws said that heavier-than-air objects can't fly? And how did such laws fail to take into account the flight capability of geese?
    SO.....quivering....are you telling me.....THERE IS NO SANTA CLAUS? I am crushed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    SO.....quivering....are you telling me.....THERE IS NO SANTA CLAUS? I am crushed.
    He died in a terrible accident involving a faulty sled, several invisible pink unicorns, as well as a white elephant suffering from violent diarrhoea. You can pencil in the details yourself...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    SO.....quivering....are you telling me.....THERE IS NO SANTA CLAUS? I am crushed.
    He died in a terrible accident involving a faulty sled, several invisible pink unicorns, as well as a white elephant suffering from violent diarrhoea. You can pencil in the details yourself...
    Sobbing!!! sniff sniff.....Kleenex.....hopefully he went without pain......and Rudolph survives!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Not really...

    that reindeer is now a steak:
    Santa is going to be pissed.....and would just lighly grill it *cough*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Some people at near death experience say they see a light, others say they become light, could that mean they are traveling at the speed of light? Just a question not a claim?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Some people at near death experience say they see a light, others say they become light, could that mean they are traveling at the speed of light? Just a question not a claim?
    The balance of probabilities say no. Hell no.
    babe likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Some people at near death experience say they see a light, others say they become light, could that mean they are traveling at the speed of light? Just a question not a claim?
    The balance of probabilities say no. Hell no.
    There are so many possibilities and probabilities you never know. I do not think they are saying that to confuse science or themselves. Maybe they are saying what they consciously are experiencing, just no way to prove it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Some people at near death experience say they see a light, others say they become light, could that mean they are traveling at the speed of light? Just a question not a claim?
    The balance of probabilities say no. Hell no.
    There are so many possibilities and probabilities you never know. I do not think they are saying that to confuse science or themselves. Maybe they are saying what they consciously are experiencing, just no way to prove it.
    There might be some people that lie about near death experiences, but there are identifiable neurological effects associated with that trauma that I am sure people have been experiencing. Near-death experience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    People add all sorts of extra details sometimes, but these aren't credible in themselves. Our brains are much more interpretive when it comes to senses, and specifically vision, than simply seeing what is there, much more than people realise.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Some people at near death experience say they see a light, others say they become light, could that mean they are traveling at the speed of light? Just a question not a claim?
    The balance of probabilities say no. Hell no.
    There are so many possibilities and probabilities you never know. I do not think they are saying that to confuse science or themselves. Maybe they are saying what they consciously are experiencing, just no way to prove it.
    There might be some people that lie about near death experiences, but there are identifiable neurological effects associated with that trauma that I am sure people have been experiencing. Near-death experience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    People add all sorts of extra details sometimes, but these aren't credible in themselves. Our brains are much more interpretive when it comes to senses, and specifically vision, than simply seeing what is there, much more than people realise.
    Although it is true what you are saying, there are plenty of people not adding anything to what they have experienced. You are also unsure if they were not telling the truth. No one can definitively say they are lying and you cannot measure everything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Some people at near death experience say they see a light, others say they become light, could that mean they are traveling at the speed of light? Just a question not a claim?
    The balance of probabilities say no. Hell no.
    There are so many possibilities and probabilities you never know. I do not think they are saying that to confuse science or themselves. Maybe they are saying what they consciously are experiencing, just no way to prove it.
    There might be some people that lie about near death experiences, but there are identifiable neurological effects associated with that trauma that I am sure people have been experiencing. Near-death experience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    People add all sorts of extra details sometimes, but these aren't credible in themselves. Our brains are much more interpretive when it comes to senses, and specifically vision, than simply seeing what is there, much more than people realise.
    Although it is true what you are saying, there are plenty of people not adding anything to what they have experienced. You are also unsure if they were not telling the truth. No one can definitively say they are lying and you cannot measure everything.
    I am not saying most are lying, only some might. Also, I am not saying most that do see something are adding details knowingly. Interpreting our senses happens subconsciously.

    In any case. this is moving far away from the topic of this thread.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,893
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Laws said heavier than air machines can't fly.
    What law was that?

    Like so many of your claims, this one is lacking evidence.
    Please provide evidence of the claim you just made against me.
    As the one making the affirmative claim, the burden of proof is on you, AiE. As you seem to be unfamiliar with the ways of science, logic, and otherwise rigorous thinking, allow me to educate you. If you were to claim "Santa Claus exists," the burden of providing evidence would be on you, the claimant. It would not be up to us to prove the negative. Our failure to prove a negative would not lend support to your original, undemonstrated claim. The default isn't that you are right until proven wrong. The default is that you have made an unsupported claim until you support it.

    See how it goes? It's simple and logical. That's how empty BS is seen explicitly to be empty BS.

    So support your claim. Which laws said that heavier-than-air objects can't fly? And how did such laws fail to take into account the flight capability of geese?
    SO.....quivering....are you telling me.....THERE IS NO SANTA CLAUS? I am crushed.
    Not to worry, babe. I cannot prove Santa Claus does not exist. No one can. All I can say is that he isn't anywhere that I've looked, but I could say the same thing about my misplaced car keys, and I'm pretty sure they exist.

    So, feel free to believe in SC. Just don't worry that, were he to exist, he and his reindeer would spontaneously burst into flame from the high speed he'd have to travel to deliver toys to everyone on Christmas.
    Howard Roark and babe like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Laws said heavier than air machines can't fly.
    What law was that?

    Like so many of your claims, this one is lacking evidence.
    Please provide evidence of the claim you just made against me.
    As the one making the affirmative claim, the burden of proof is on you, AiE. As you seem to be unfamiliar with the ways of science, logic, and otherwise rigorous thinking, allow me to educate you. If you were to claim "Santa Claus exists," the burden of providing evidence would be on you, the claimant. It would not be up to us to prove the negative. Our failure to prove a negative would not lend support to your original, undemonstrated claim. The default isn't that you are right until proven wrong. The default is that you have made an unsupported claim until you support it.

    See how it goes? It's simple and logical. That's how empty BS is seen explicitly to be empty BS.

    So support your claim. Which laws said that heavier-than-air objects can't fly? And how did such laws fail to take into account the flight capability of geese?
    SO.....quivering....are you telling me.....THERE IS NO SANTA CLAUS? I am crushed.
    Not to worry, babe. I cannot prove Santa Claus does not exist. No one can. All I can say is that he isn't anywhere that I've looked, but I could say the same thing about my misplaced car keys, and I'm pretty sure they exist.

    So, feel free to believe in SC. Just don't worry that, were he to exist, he and his reindeer would spontaneously burst into flame from the high speed he'd have to travel to deliver toys to everyone on Christmas.
    I hid my suit.....it only goes on after everyone is in bed.....then I pull all the stuff out of hiding and place it around the tree......but that damn beard is a killer! Dang if the reindeer spontaneously burst into flame..that means my wood stove blew up!! WHERE DID I PUT THE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Some people at near death experience say they see a light, others say they become light, could that mean they are traveling at the speed of light? Just a question not a claim?
    The balance of probabilities say no. Hell no.
    There are so many possibilities and probabilities you never know. I do not think they are saying that to confuse science or themselves. Maybe they are saying what they consciously are experiencing, just no way to prove it.
    What we can do is provide a much more reasonable explanation for the phenomenon and rule out absurdities and anecdotes. We do this through a process called "Science".
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: January 24th, 2011, 04:36 PM
  2. Replies: 47
    Last Post: September 21st, 2010, 08:37 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 23rd, 2009, 04:28 PM
  4. Do you think Faster than Light travel is possible?
    By kojax in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: January 6th, 2009, 02:08 PM
  5. psudeo faster than light travel
    By medlakeguy in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 14th, 2008, 01:50 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •