question is: are we sticking with Einstein?

"Trust" is irrelevent. This is the scientific method. You do an experiment and ask the scientific community to falsify, while attempting to develop a theory that predicts the results, which is also open to falsification.

 

You really need to understand the scientific method. "Proofs" are questioned by peers in the scientific community every day, even down to the most basic axioms. The strength of science is that it's open to falsification at any time, and every challenge improves our understanding. "Truth" is irrelevent.

 

Photons also have mass but travel at c. Nothing should be able to travel faster than c, mass or not, according to Einsteinian physics - which only predict what happens up to c. The equations are meaningless above c.

 

Blowtorch a Hoover. That'll kill it.

 

Newton's dead. Galileo is dead. Einstein is dead. And I'm not feeling very well myself...

 

Your statement doesn't bear scrutiny. One can presume that the decision to publish was predicated on an enormous amount of validation and soul-searching, exactly because the scientists' reputation is at stake. More astute minds than ours have so far found no reason to question their integrity, under examination that neither of us could ever withstand.

But you give away your mindset when you talk about "...politicians and they have a huge motivation to justify the expense of their work."

I find the same flawed mindset amongst human-cause climate change deniers.

 

Wow, I think someone's been at the catnip! Could someone translate this into English?

 

There once was a fellow named Bright
Who could bicycle at the speed of light
He set off one day
In a relative way
And came home the previous night!

 

Tom
the sun isn't in a vacuum, space may be a vacuum but by definition the gas giants have an atmosphere. They are an atmosphere, its just that its so complex an atmosphere its easy to miss that gas giant is in some ways synonymous with atmosphere giant. That atmosphere is what slows the bleeding off of heat into space (space defined as 1 particle pr cubic meter ) Thus the sun is in an atmosphere. The earth is in an atmosphere as well. Ther earths atmosphere. Greenhouse gasses and other components of that atmosphere is what prevent us from bleeding off all our heat. Same kinda thing composes a vital component in the balance of forces acting on the sun.

 

Factual and true --I like it,--- and is as intelligent as anything else posted here on this subject or will be.

 

RayThackeray.....I understand the provisional nature of scientific findings, the point I am making is that in the mind of the public all scientific pronouncements will have less credibility if Einstein is seen to have 'got it wrong', or all these OPERA people have stuffed up. It's one or the other. Not a good look for those trying to sell climate 'science', IMO. Generations of schoolchildren have had the 'nothing can exceed the speed of light', story drummed into then as FACT, you'd have been laughed out of the classroom contradicting it. And now this. And you think it is just business as usual in the scientific world ? The ramifications of this are beyond anything in the history of science, IMO.

 

Ok Ille bite, why is the speed of light the fastest anyway, I mean what was the theory that stopped it from going faster, its the same as electricity, was coincidence it?

The warp drive that star trek used is actually now a real drive. If fires Ions out the back,--only with little weight yet with Newtons laws it is able to propel vehicles expected to penetrate deep space.
Im not surprised or exited in the slightest just pleased we are moving towards religious abanondoment and then and only then can we truley say that there is intelligent life on Earth

 

negative velocity

Toss a ball into the air. As it goes up it experiences negative acceleration, i.e., it slows down. As it falls back to earth it experiences positive acceleration, however at no point in the journey did it have negative velocity. Distance: It is the same distance from point A to B as it is from B to A.

Please give me an example of negative velocity or distance.

 

Maybe David Deutsch can answer that:

http://www.ted.com/talks/david_deutsch_on_our_place_in_the_cosmos.html

 

the idea is based on Einsteins theory of relativity, which in its simplest form predicts that no mater how fast your going, light always appears to be going the same speed and its time that varies. Your time. Another component of the limit on light speed is that as you go faster things get heavier, so eventually no mater what your energy source long before you get up to the speed of light your pretty much out of gas. At light speed some infinities come into play but that's a more complex way to look at it that I don't really remember enough of to explain very well, but in the end the faster you go the more energy it takes until finally all the energy in the world won't get your fat *** moving any faster

And no warp drive is not Ionic propulsion. Warp drive is when time space is bent out of the way, If its bent into a fold where two sides touch then its called a worm hole. They have some pretty slick methods of propulsion these days but they're not going to really impress me till they figure out gravitational drive.

my personal take is that since even Einstein thought relativity was flawed that gravity is just as likely to be a force as it is an effect. If its a force then its clearly acting at a near instantaneous speed. In which case there would be an avenue to travel that allows for faster than light speed. Which Godel already proved was possible if causality is accurate.