Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

GO TO BOARDS


Ironic, Isn't it.

12
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Pancakezomg

Senior Member

09-22-2011

So it took over 100 years to disprove Einsteins theory?
Dang we are so slow.
Guy above me its "liar".


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Over9000Losses

Senior Member

09-22-2011

The columnists have no clue what they're talking about. Read this comment posted on Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/comments/idUSL5E7KM4CW20110922) to see what I'm talking about:

The reporting here is incorrect. Einstein’s theory *DOES NOT HOLD* that nothing can travel faster than light. That is a very common misconception. Einstein’s theory starts with one axiom (a self evident truth) and one postulate (a statement deemed to be true without further argument). The axiom from Einstein’s theory can be stated: the laws of physics should not depend on the frame of reference of the observer. This is a self evident truth. The postulate can be stated: light will be measured to travel at the same speed by all observers regardless of reference frame. This postulate was based on experimental evidence available in 1905 and still available today. When the axiom and postulate are applied to observers traveling at constant speed relative to one another, you get the special theory of relativity, published as part of Einsteins 1905 paper. One of the conclusions is that “the speed of light is constant and absolute in free space”. It falls out of the mathematics. This conclusion is part of the special theory of relativity. It has to date not been dis-proven. If it is, then the postulate must be incorrect. It would mean that light *can* be measured to travel at a different speed depending on the frame of reference of the observer. I don’t get from the article that this is what has occurred. When the axiom and postulate are applied to gravitational and accelerating frames of reference, you get the general theory of relativity, published in 1916. The general relativity mathematics bring forth strange things like black holes, worm holes, time warps, time travel etc. in the so called “fabric of space and time.” The stuff science fiction authors and buff’s are so enamored with. Including me. Most of it has not been practically realized. Only the more mundane stuff like gravity lenses, time dilation, length contraction have been observed. If any experiment can be performed that is in contradiction to the conclusions, then we would merely say, as would Einstein, that the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light, regardless of reference frame, must be incorrect. That’s not such a big deal, really. It would change a lot of physics. It would be very exciting. But it would just mean that the one postulate, one that none of us have ever been able to intuit anyway, is incorrect.

This is not the first time that experiments have been performed that have particles traveling faster than light *in a medium other than free space*. In this case neutrinos travel through, air, water and apparently rock faster than light does. That does not violate the fundamental postulate that the speed of light is constant regardless of the frame of reference of the observer.

Get it right.

Dr. Karl Hudnut, UCAR – COSMIC.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Dingus Khan

Senior Member

09-22-2011

Quote:
Over9000Losses:
The columnists have no clue what they're talking about. Read this comment posted on Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/comments/idUSL5E7KM4CW20110922) to see what I'm talking about:

The reporting here is incorrect. Einstein’s theory *DOES NOT HOLD* that nothing can travel faster than light. That is a very common misconception. Einstein’s theory starts with one axiom (a self evident truth) and one postulate (a statement deemed to be true without further argument). The axiom from Einstein’s theory can be stated: the laws of physics should not depend on the frame of reference of the observer. This is a self evident truth. The postulate can be stated: light will be measured to travel at the same speed by all observers regardless of reference frame. This postulate was based on experimental evidence available in 1905 and still available today. When the axiom and postulate are applied to observers traveling at constant speed relative to one another, you get the special theory of relativity, published as part of Einsteins 1905 paper. One of the conclusions is that “the speed of light is constant and absolute in free space”. It falls out of the mathematics. This conclusion is part of the special theory of relativity. It has to date not been dis-proven. If it is, then the postulate must be incorrect. It would mean that light *can* be measured to travel at a different speed depending on the frame of reference of the observer. I don’t get from the article that this is what has occurred. When the axiom and postulate are applied to gravitational and accelerating frames of reference, you the general theory of relativity, published in 1916. The general relativity mathematics bring forth strange things like black holes, worm holes, time warps, time travel etc. in the so called “fabric of space and time.” The stuff science fiction authors and buff’s are so enamored with. Including me. Most of it has not been practically realized. Only the more mundane stuff like gravity lenses, time dilation, length contraction have been observed. If any experiment can be performed that is in contradiction to the conclusions, then we would merely say, as would Einstein, that the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light, regardless of reference frame, must be incorrect. That’s not such a big deal, really. It would change a lot of physics. It would be very exciting. But it would just mean that the one postulate, one that none of us have ever been able to intuit anyway, is incorrect.

This is not the first time that experiments have been performed that have particles traveling faster than light *in a medium other than free space*. In this case neutrinos travel through, air, water and apparently rock faster than light does. That does not violate the fundamental postulate that the speed of light is constant regardless of the frame of reference of the observer.

Get it right.

Dr. Karl Hudnut, UCAR – COSMIC.



Disregarding the fact that according to Einstein's theories, an object would need an infinite amount of energy to even reach the speed of light, let alone break it.


Also, I stopped reading that when I came across "postulate" for the 15th time. If you wanna sound smart, need a thesaurus, not just overuse one big word. And yes, I know this wans't written by, this isn't directed at you.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Over9000Losses

Senior Member

09-22-2011

Infinite energy for matter to reach the speed of light in a vacuum. The speed of light in a medium (as was the case in this experiment) is much lower.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

TheBrilliantFool

Senior Member

09-22-2011

First of there are a ton of particles that move WAY faster than light. Like Tachyons 'cept they move so fast the travel backwards in the timestream


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kilorilo

Recruiter

09-22-2011

And nothing of value was gained.


12