Forums → The Tavern → Science discussions.

I'm not saying that neutrinos do travel faster than the speed of light; I'm merely stating the obvious fact that they can't use the theory of relativity in their calculations, because that would be assuming that it exists

Gotcha. By this logic, we can't use the theory of gravity to predict anything either.

I'm merely stating the obvious fact that they can't use the theory of relativity in their calculations, because that would be assuming that it exists.

We are not trying to prove relativity. We're trying to see how fast a neutrino can travel. We already know relativity exists. We just want to see if neutrinos can travel at a certain speed.

Gotcha. By this logic, we can't use the theory of gravity to predict anything either.

Gravity has been proven indefinitely. Newton had the idea and the proceeded to prove it. The planets have a strong gravitational field. They have the ability to pull things towards it. All masses have a gravitational field. But planets and anything bigger like stars or denser like blackholes and neutron stars all have really strong gravitational field. This has been proven indefinitely; it isn't a theory, it is a an attraction. Not a force, no, an attraction. Like the attraction between protons and electrons causing the formation of atoms. The gravity on Earth is 9.81 meters per second squared as it is acceleration. So you can use it unless your proving it; you can use any theory you want apart from the ones that your trying to prove/disprove. Okay? I am very up on the principles behind theorisation, so don't test me.

Anyway, what's this about neutrinos moving faster than light? And why has it gone on for fifteen pages?

It's catching like a house on fire. I always russel up a good debate...

We are not trying to prove relativity. We're trying to see how fast a neutrino can travel. We already know relativity exists. We just want to see if neutrinos can travel at a certain speed.

No, the neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light disproves the theory of relativity, therefore you can't assume that it exists anymore because it is a very good way of disproving it. But what if the theory of relativity is not actually true? What if neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light??? Then the very foundations of physics would be torn apart. Therefore to prevent the necessity to completely reinvent physics from the foundations up, the physicists are trying their hardest to disprove that neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light because that would then in turn disprove the theory of relativity. Therefore you can't use the theory of relativity because the neutrinos make the theory of relativity debatable. Therefore if you use it in your calculations, you assume that it exists when it may well not. Because the theory of relativity disproves that neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light. But they might travel faster than the speed of light if the theory of relativity doesn't exist. Therefore this experiment is fundamental to proving/disproving the theory of relativity and therefore it can't be used in the calculations. So you have to use Earth based equipment to cut out the necessity to use it. That way the existence/non-existence won't of the theory of relativity don't get in the way of the calculations, and then they can successfully prove/disprove that neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light and therefore whether the theory of relativity is true or not and therefore whether the entire foundations of physics have to be rebuilt again from the very beginning or if they are on safe, stable foundations. You see you can't use any theories that could be proved/disproved by the experiment, because then you're assuming that it exists, when it might well turn out not to. Therefore you have to make sure that the experiment performed doesn't have the requirement of the theory and therefore you can deduce whether that theory actually is true or not...

Therefore the theory of relativity cannot be used in the explanation of whether or not neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light or not... So, dair5, that's why the theory of relativity cannot be used in the calculations of the speed of the neutrinos; because it might well not be true after all; hence why it is labeled merely a "theory". It has held well so far, but who knows when that theory will eventually fail to explain something and then suddenly you'll need a new theory. Unfortunately for physicists, the theory of relativity is what the foundations of many of their discoveries were based off. If it turns out that it doesn't exist after all, then it'll be a pain for them to have to rethink all of their theories, therefore they refuse to believe that neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light and therefore they are trying desperately hard to prove otherwise so that they don't have to reconstruct modern physics from right near the beginning again. That's why they are trying so hard to disprove it.

Therefore we don't truly know whether neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light or not and therefore physicists are performing more tests on it. Why would they do that if it was a long gone dead and buried case, Kasic? Obviously they aren't satisfied with the results, or the safety of the theory of relativity. They wouldn't otherwise perform more tests if they believed it to be completely safe and therefore they must believe that they need to do further tests, else why would they!? They must obviously think that they need to and therefore the theory of relativity can't be all that safe for them to need to do more tests, therefore it can't be all proven and completed, so they must still be unsure and therefore they are doing more tests. So it isn't completely proven at all. THAT'S why they're doing more tests on it. Therefore it can't be already proven. Otherwise why would they do more tests on it!?!?

Therefore the theory of relativity isn't safe and physicists aren't 100% sure whether neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light yet or not...

After further tests, they should be sure. Then it will be clear what the outcome is... So don't be too sure of yourself there...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvZfx7iwq94&feature=related

Gravity has been proven indefinitely

And yet, it's still referred to as a theory. Hmm...

Here, watch this video, it's not 6 minutes long and you have already stated you do not fully understand the theory of relativity, perhaps this will clear some things up.

Space-Time and the Speed of Light|Einstein's Relativity

Otherwise why would they do more tests on it!?!?

Because, as with ANYTHING, there is the possibility that we are wrong. Since there is that chance, we leave ALL of our theories open to change in case of this. They are simply making sure that this particular instance is NOT violating the Theory of Relativity in the only way which they can, by repeated occurances that have been independantly verified, i.e, the scientific method.

And yet, it's still referred to as a theory. Hmm...

No its not else it can't be calculated as 9.8 meters per second...

I KNOW THAT! I don't think you understand what I'm saying... The theory of relativity can't be used to prove the teory of relativity because your assuming that the theory of relativity already exists before you've even proven it. I'm not saying that any of their other work is ****. I'm just pointing out a single flaw in one of their experiments...

I DON'T CARE about the theory of relativity, because the principle of theorisation still states that you can't use the theory to prove itself else your already assuming the outcome of your theory states that it is true even without testing it first. That's just stupid... It doesn't matter what theory it is; this rule applies to all. It's common sense...

Anyway, I'll post another message after I've seen the video...

And yet, it's still referred to as a theory.

Are we talking about the phenomenon of gravity, or the principles of which gravity is applied to planet Earth? These are a law and theory, respectively.

Are we talking about the phenomenon of gravity, or the principles of which gravity is applied to planet Earth? These are a law and theory, respectively.

Gravity for which there are laws of. Like when accelerating you eventually reach a point whereby the velocity is too high to get higher still because it becomes outweighed by the air resistance which eventually become an equilibrium and is known as terminal velocity. Hitting the ground at that speed would make a nasty mess if your a human, but as spiders and insects have a really small mass, the gravity acting upon them is less because the mass is less which reduces the force acting upon it. So even though the terminal velocity is higher, the damage is less to the point of none. The acceleration due to gravity on Earth is 9.8 meters per second. You can't fall to your death on the moon, because the gravity isn't strong enough. On Jupiter it would be a smaller distance to death than in relation to Earth.

There are laws of gravity and motion.

Seeing as nobody has ever gone that fast

Yet.

Because without air resistance to slow you down, you could keep accelerating infinitely, therefore if you're in outer space you'd be able to travel backwards in time. This makes no sense therefore the theory of relativity seems stupid to me...

It makes sense. I don't see what you find stupid about it. If you are constantly accelerating, you will get faster and faster and faster. Eventually, you will reach the speed of light. The question then is, is it possible to go past this?

Any questions...?

Yes. What is this?

"fgyhgfhgjk"

I'll start off the discussion:

You don't start a discussion by giving us some random fact. You ask what we think of it, or if we think there may be a better option, or if perhaps it's unsafe, or if we need to find an alternate energy source before nuclear fusion is ready to be used in a world wide scale, etc. You gave us nothing to discuss.