Science discussions. - Armor Games Community

205	28200

offline

gamer66618

274 posts

Nomad

Posted November 26, '11 11:55pm UTC

Yes. What is this?

"fgyhgfhgjk"

Erm...
Basically the article is saying that science, especially physics, has adopted a very very strict definition of fact and law, and won't declare anything a law anymore unless every single possible case across the entire universe has been tested. You won't find a physicist in the world who says that the theory of relativity is false, especially without undeniable proof to back it up, and these neutrinos are right now aren't solid proof and therefor the theory is still universally accepted.[/quote] I'm not saying to dismiss the theory of relativity, I'm saying to not use it in the calculations because the neutrinos could depend on it not being used and therefore they should measure it using Earth based equipment. I'm not boldly stating that the theory of relativity doesn't exist without proper information to disprove so.
Right, then, what do you think? What're your opinions?[quote]

offline

gamer66618

274 posts

Nomad

Posted November 26, '11 11:57pm UTC

Right then. Now an additional topic on top of concurrent discussion to include in responses on top of current debate... What are your opinions on the breakthroughs of nuclear fusion? Do you think that it is likely successful or not or what? And what other opinions do you have about it and anything else in science and fission and whatever? Post!

offline

master565

4,103 posts

Nomad

Posted November 26, '11 11:59pm UTC

I'm not saying to dismiss the theory of relativity, I'm saying to not use it in the calculations because the neutrinos could depend on it not being used

You can't leave out part of the equation so that you can get a different outcome.

could depend on it not being used

Explain what you mean.

they should measure it using Earth based equipment

Explain what you mean because we have a fairly large understanding of the theory of relativity, so if it's an accepted theory, once again, why leave it out?

offline

gamer66618

274 posts

Nomad

Posted November 27, '11 12:09am UTC

You can't leave out part of the equation so that you can get a different outcome.

you should because the theory could be disproved if neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light. that could disprove the theory of relativity if it didn't have the theory of relativity to abide by. But that is assuming that it does abide by the theory of relativity. As long as you don't use orbital satellites to do your calculations but instead use a Earth based measurement of time (I'm thinking that it detects the neutrino and then it sends it to the computer which subtracts the amount of time for the signal to be converted to an electric current and for the electric current to arrive at the computer and to be processed into data) then it will eliminate the necessity to use the theory of relativity because it isn't orbiting above the Earth relative to the speed of orbit. Therefore you don't need to use the theory of relativity and that's what they're doing at the moment. Then we'll see the outcome: Is a neutrino faster than the speed of light and therefore the theory of relativity isn't true? Or is the theory of relativity happily safe?

Explain what you mean.

I mean that the theory of relativity is being used to affect the outcome of results. If you eliminate the very necessity to use it then you can remain happy that it is accurate.

Explain what you mean because we have a fairly large understanding of the theory of relativity, so if it's an accepted theory, once again, why leave it out?

Like I said, it affects the result. Therefore if the neutrino is traveling close to or faster than the speed of light then the theory of relativity may well not exist. Therefore at those speeds, assuming that the theory of relativity does exist even though it may well be so, seems like a counter-intuitive idea to me...

Hence the principle of theorisation: you can't use a theory to prove itself as a neutrino might disprove it therefore assuming that it exists is stupid. Hence the reason why they're using Earth based equipment now for more accurate readings with the elimination of the necessity to use the theory of relativity.

[quote]You can't leave out part of the equation so that you can get a different outcome.[/quote] you should because the theory could be disproved if neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light. that could disprove the theory of relativity if it didn't have the theory of relativity to abide by. But that is assuming that it does abide by the theory of relativity. As long as you don't use orbital satellites to do your calculations but instead use a Earth based measurement of time (I'm thinking that it detects the neutrino and then it sends it to the computer which subtracts the amount of time for the signal to be converted to an electric current and for the electric current to arrive at the computer and to be processed into data) then it will eliminate the [i]necessity[/i] to use the theory of relativity because it isn't orbiting above the Earth  relative to the speed of orbit. Therefore you don't need to use the theory of relativity and that's what they're doing at the moment. Then we'll see the outcome: Is a neutrino faster than the speed of light and therefore the theory of relativity isn't true? Or is the theory of relativity happily safe?  [quote]Explain what you mean.[/quote] I mean that the theory of relativity is being used to affect the outcome of results. If you eliminate the very [i]necessity[/i] to use it then you can remain happy that it is accurate. [quote]Explain what you mean because we have a fairly large understanding of the theory of relativity, so if it's an accepted theory, once again, why leave it out?[/quote] Like I said, it affects the result. Therefore if the neutrino is traveling close to or faster than the speed of light then the theory of relativity may well not exist. Therefore at those speeds, assuming that the theory of relativity [i]does[/i] exist even though it may well be so, seems like a counter-intuitive idea to me...\r\n\r\nHence the principle of theorisation: you can't use a theory to prove itself as a neutrino might disprove it therefore assuming that it exists is stupid. Hence the reason why they're using Earth based equipment now for more accurate readings with the elimination of the necessity to use the theory of relativity.

offline

master565

4,103 posts

Nomad

Posted November 27, '11 12:45am UTC

you should because the theory could be disproved if neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light

Okay, I'm not sure how you don't realize you can't just leave a piece of the equation out but i'll explain in a mathematical sense.

Let's say A = 2 and B = 3.

Then we have the equation A+B=6

OHWAIT, that doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense because we got the equation wrong. We knew A equaled 2, and B equaled 3, but we forgot to add in C, which we know equals 1.

C in this sense is relativity and the equation is the whole thing with the neutrinos. We KNOW relativity is a part of the equation and we KNOW that without it, the equation didn't make sense. Obviously if we leave out part of the equation then we are going to get false results, so if we leave out relativity, all results are invalid and can't be used to disprove anything.

Hence the principle of theorisation: you can't use a theory to prove itself as a neutrino might disprove it therefore assuming that it exists is stupid.

You clearly didn't read the link i gave about what a theory means in physics.

[quote]you should because the theory could be disproved if neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light[/quote]\r\n\r\nOkay, I'm not sure how you don't realize you can't just leave a piece of the equation out but i'll explain in a mathematical sense.\r\n\r\nLet's say A = 2 and B = 3.\r\n\r\nThen we have the equation A+B=6\r\n\r\nOHWAIT, that doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense because we got the equation wrong. We knew A equaled 2, and B equaled 3, but we forgot to add in C, which we know equals 1.\r\n\r\nC in this sense is relativity and the equation is the whole thing with the neutrinos. We KNOW relativity is a part of the equation and we KNOW that without it, the equation didn't make sense. Obviously if we leave out part of the equation then we are going to get false results, so if we leave out relativity, all results are invalid and can't be used to disprove anything.\r\n\r\n[quote]Hence the principle of theorisation: you can't use a theory to prove itself as a neutrino might disprove it therefore assuming that it exists is stupid. [/quote]\r\n\r\nYou clearly didn't read the link i gave about what a theory means in physics.

offline

gamer66618

274 posts

Nomad

Posted November 27, '11 11:32am UTC

@master365: what I'm saying is that you should use Earth based equipment. Therefore you eliminate the NECESSITY to use the theory of relativity. Then you wouldn't need to bicker about whether you should use it or not because your aren't using orbital satellites and therefore you wouldn't NEED to use it and therefore it doesn't matter whether the theory of relativity exists or not because you wouldn't NEED to use it in your equations anyway because you aren't using space-based equipment that are looking at Earth from an alternate viewpoint and therefore it isn't mattering about the Theory of Relativity because there is no orbiting the Earth so therefore having to take the theory of relativity into account anyway because it is Earth based equipment. Therefore that helps to indefinitely prove/disprove that the theory of relativity exists. That's all I'm saying. If you use a different equation to get to the same answer, then it doesn't matter if you don't use the theory of relativity because it isn't involved in the equations in the first place because you're using equipment that is Earth-based and therefore you don't NNED to use the theory of relativity. You are eliminating the very NECESSITY to use it. Not just not using it.

@master365: what I'm saying is that you should use Earth based equipment. Therefore you eliminate the [i][b]NECESSITY[/b][/i] to use the theory of relativity. Then you wouldn't need to bicker about whether you should use it or not because your aren't using orbital satellites and therefore you wouldn't [b]NEED[/b] to use it and therefore it doesn't matter whether the theory of relativity exists or not because you wouldn't [b]NEED[/b] to use it in your equations anyway because you aren't using space-based equipment that are looking at Earth from an alternate viewpoint and therefore it isn't mattering about the Theory of Relativity because there is no orbiting the Earth so therefore having to take the theory of relativity into account anyway because it is Earth based equipment. Therefore that helps to indefinitely prove/disprove that the theory of relativity exists. [b]That's[/b] all I'm saying. If you use a different equation to get to the same answer, then it doesn't matter if you don't use the theory of relativity because it isn't involved in the equations in the first place because you're using equipment that is Earth-based and therefore you don't [b]NNED[/b] to use the theory of relativity. You are eliminating the very [b]NECESSITY[/b] to use it. Not just not using it.

offline

gamer66618

274 posts

Nomad

Posted November 27, '11 11:44am UTC

If scientists can't completely and utterly prove something in every single way humanly and physically possible, then it is doomed to be considered a theory forever. If the neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light it would completely disprove it but if they didn't it'd still be theory that simply still stands. I understand that it is completely proven so far, but because not every single eventuality has been covered, it isn't absolute and therefore is still a theory. A hypothesis is something that is just something thrown out there for further inspection or a new angle on things. However if the theory of relativity may very well turn out to not apply to traveling velocities of neutrinos, then obviously you eliminate the very NECESSITY to use them. Without the very NECESSITY to use them , you don't have to worry about affecting the equation if you're using Earth-based equipment. Seeing as the theory of relativity hasn't been proven absolutely in every single scenario ever, then obviously it might not apply to traveling neutrinos. I don't really see why you're trying to belligerently refuse to accept the fact that Earth based equipment is possibly a better way to measure neutrino velocity... Therefore I see no reason to not eliminate the NECESSITY to use the theory of relativity by using Earth-based equipment. That would prove once and for all whether neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light or not and therefore whether the theory of relativity exists or not.

Also, another hypothesis could be that they do prove the theory of relativity by arriving there slower than the speed of light because they actually traveled faster than it and therefore went backwards in time and therefore appear to have arrived slower, but were actually faster and therefore went backwards in time so it arrived earlier in time, and therefore they travel faster than the speed of light and obey the theory of relativity... Just a thought. (:

If scientists can't completely and utterly prove something in every single way humanly and physically possible, then it is doomed to be considered a theory forever. If the neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light it would completely disprove it but if they didn't it'd still be theory that simply still stands. I understand that it is completely proven so far, but because not every single eventuality has been covered, it isn't absolute and therefore is still a theory. A hypothesis is something that is just something thrown out there for further inspection or a new angle on things. However if the theory of relativity may very well turn out to not apply to traveling velocities of neutrinos, then obviously you eliminate the very  [b]NECESSITY[/b] to use them. Without the very [b]NECESSITY[/b] to use them , you don't have to worry about affecting the equation if you're using Earth-based equipment. Seeing as the theory of relativity hasn't been proven absolutely in every single scenario ever, then obviously it might not apply to traveling neutrinos. I don't really see why you're trying to belligerently refuse to accept the fact that Earth based equipment is possibly a better way to measure neutrino velocity... Therefore I see no reason to not eliminate the [b]NECESSITY[/b] to use the theory of relativity by using Earth-based equipment. That would prove once and for all whether neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light or not and therefore whether the theory of relativity exists or not.\r\n\r\nAlso, another hypothesis could be that they do prove the theory of relativity by arriving there slower than the speed of light because they actually traveled faster than it and therefore went backwards in time and therefore appear to have arrived slower, but were actually faster and therefore went backwards in time so it arrived earlier in time, and therefore they travel faster than the speed of light and obey the theory of relativity... Just a thought. (:

offline

Aeridani

360 posts

Nomad

Posted November 27, '11 1:16pm UTC

Also, another hypothesis could be that they do prove the theory of relativity by arriving there slower than the speed of light because they actually traveled faster than it and therefore went backwards in time and therefore appear to have arrived slower, but were actually faster and therefore went backwards in time so it arrived earlier in time, and therefore they travel faster than the speed of light and obey the theory of relativity... Just a thought. (:

WIN

offline

KentyBK

566 posts

Nomad

Posted November 27, '11 2:01pm UTC

what I'm saying is that you should use Earth based equipment.

He's fully aware of what you're trying to say. However, that isn't how you do science. Also, relativity applies on earth just as much as it does in space, so you'd gain nothing from that little endeavor.

Therefore you eliminate the NECESSITY to use the theory of relativity.

Impossible. But somehow "eliminating" the use of the theory, you can no longer determine the validity of it. Not to mention that very idea is so ridiculous to even consider, because relativity sits in the very center of modern physics.

In fact, general relativity is an extension of Newton's law of universal gravitation (the thing you said has been &quotroven indefinitely&quot and explains phenomena that Newton's law can't.
Relativistic effects have been observed and experimentally proven. For instance, without relativity, a GPS would not work because GPS satellites are affected by time dilation. That is a fact. And it's also why relativity is considered a scientific theory to begin with.

"Just a theory" doesn't cut it, because scientific theories are well-supported by experiments and empirical data.

Want some more "theories"?

Big Bang Theory
Cell Theory
Evolution
Germ Theory
Atomic Theory
Molecular Theory
Kinetic Theory of gases
Climate CHange Theory
Plate Techtonics
Acoustic theory
Antenna theory
Theory of relativity
String theory

Does that mean all of those are 100% unfailable laws? Of course not, because all of science, by definition, has to be falsifiable. And that's exactly why you have to take relativity into account.

Consider these cases:

Case 1: Relativity is taken into account, neutrinos do not surpass light speed (LS)

Conclusion 1: Relativity holds, nothing changes

Case 2: Relativity is taken into account, neutrinos surpass LS

Conclusion 2: Our current understanding of relativity is wrong, new science is made

Case 3: Relativity is not taken into account

Conclusion 3: No conclusion can be drawn because existing concepts of reality (in this case, relativistic effects, which again, have been proven to exist) were not involved in the calculation.

In fact, if you remove relativity, neutrinos surpassing LS has no consequence, because relativity is the one that states LS cannot be broken in the first place.

Also, another hypothesis could be that they do prove the theory of relativity by arriving there slower than the speed of light because they actually traveled faster than it and therefore went backwards in time and therefore appear to have arrived slower, but were actually faster and therefore went backwards in time so it arrived earlier in time, and therefore they travel faster than the speed of light and obey the theory of relativity... Just a thought. (:

So we prove relativity, by letting the neutrinos disprove the theory?

Sounds legit.

[quote] what I'm saying is that you should use Earth based equipment.[/quote]\r\n\r\nHe's fully aware of what you're trying to say. However, that isn't how you do science. Also, relativity applies on earth just as much as it does in space, so you'd gain nothing from that little endeavor.\r\n\r\n[quote]Therefore you eliminate the NECESSITY to use the theory of relativity.[/quote]\r\n\r\nImpossible. But somehow "eliminating" the use of the theory, you can no longer determine the validity of it. Not to mention that very idea is so ridiculous to even consider, because relativity sits in the very center of modern physics.\r\n\r\nIn fact, general relativity is [b]an extension of Newton's law of universal gravitation[/b] (the thing you said has been "proven indefinitely") and explains phenomena that Newton's law can't. \r\nRelativistic effects have been observed and experimentally proven. For instance, without relativity, [b]a GPS would not work[/b] because GPS satellites are affected by time dilation. That is a fact. And it's also why relativity is considered a scientific theory to begin with.\r\n\r\n"Just a theory" doesn't cut it, because scientific theories are well-supported by experiments and empirical data.\r\n\r\nWant some more "theories"?\r\n\r\nBig Bang Theory\r\nCell Theory\r\nEvolution\r\nGerm Theory\r\nAtomic Theory\r\nMolecular Theory\r\nKinetic Theory of gases \r\nClimate CHange Theory\r\nPlate Techtonics\r\nAcoustic theory\r\nAntenna theory\r\nTheory of relativity\r\nString theory\r\n\r\nDoes that mean all of those are 100% unfailable laws? Of course not, because all of science, by definition, has to be falsifiable. And that's [b]exactly why you have to take relativity into account.[/b]\r\n\r\nConsider these cases:\r\n\r\nCase 1: Relativity is taken into account, neutrinos do not surpass light speed (LS)\r\n\r\nConclusion 1: Relativity holds, nothing changes\r\n\r\n\r\nCase 2: Relativity is taken into account, neutrinos surpass LS\r\n\r\nConclusion 2: Our current understanding of relativity is wrong, new science is made\r\n\r\n\r\nCase 3: Relativity is not taken into account\r\n\r\nConclusion 3: No conclusion can be drawn because existing concepts of reality (in this case, relativistic effects, which again, have been proven to exist) were not involved in the calculation.\r\n\r\nIn fact, if you remove relativity, neutrinos surpassing LS has no consequence, because relativity is the one that states LS cannot be broken in the first place.\r\n\r\n[quote]Also, another hypothesis could be that they do prove the theory of relativity by arriving there slower than the speed of light because they actually traveled faster than it and therefore went backwards in time and therefore appear to have arrived slower, but were actually faster and therefore went backwards in time so it arrived earlier in time, and therefore they travel faster than the speed of light and obey the theory of relativity... Just a thought. (:[/quote]\r\n\r\nSo we prove relativity, by letting the neutrinos disprove the theory?\r\n\r\nSounds legit.

offline

master565

4,103 posts

Nomad

Posted November 27, '11 2:05pm UTC

Well, Kenty pretty much covered everything i was going to say, but i'm still going to poke a bit of holes in the logic of your last paragraph.

Also, another hypothesis could be that they do prove the theory of relativity by arriving there slower than the speed of light because they actually traveled faster than it and therefore went backwards in time and therefore appear to have arrived slower, but were actually faster and therefore went backwards in time so it arrived earlier in time, and therefore they travel faster than the speed of light and obey the theory of relativity... Just a thought. (:

If they were traveling faster then light then

A) What Kenty said, the theory would be disproved.
B) Even if the theory wasn't disproved, the particles would no longer be traveling towards the sensor, because that would be traveling forward in time, and these particles are traveling backwards in time.

offline

gamer66618

274 posts

Nomad

Posted November 27, '11 2:24pm UTC

He's fully aware of what you're trying to say. However, that isn't how you do science. Also, relativity applies on earth just as much as it does in space, so you'd gain nothing from that little endeavor.

In what way would the theory of relativity exist on Earth? In outer space the satellites recording the time is showing that as it is relative to the speed of the orbiting planet traveling through space. Therefore if you do the timing on planet Earth rather than above it you won't need to take that into account and therefore you won't need to take the theory of relativity into account. So what you just said is stupid...

Impossible. But somehow "eliminating" the use of the theory, you can no longer determine the validity of it. Not to mention that very idea is so ridiculous to even consider, because relativity sits in the very center of modern physics.

I'm not saying that it needs to be eliminated in its entirety I'm just saying that it is not necessary to use the theory of relativity if it is using Earth based technology because you don't need to take into account the theory of relativity and if it is traveling slower than the speed of light, the theory of relativity applies, but if it is going faster than the speed of light then obviously the theory of relativity doesn't apply and therefore you can't use it because then you're assuming that it does apply when it might well not be the case in the case of these elusive neutrinos. So therefore you eliminate any necessity to use the theory of relativity by using Earth based equipment. I don't know why that's so hard for people to understand...

In fact, general relativity is an extension of Newton's law of universal gravitation

Yeah, but it is a theoretical extension of universal gravitation. Because it is the bending of the space because it is traveling at speed with great mass relative to the speed of light. The gravitation is the just the factual statement made by Newton that large masses like planets and satellites like the moon and stars like the sun have large gravitational fields. Even if you didn't know to define it like that, you must know that what goes up must come down. It just so happens that the first classical physicist to think up of this was Newton, followed by Einstein. And the theory of relativity may not apply to traveling neutrinos therefore it is stupid to assume that it does. Even if it happens that it does, the subatomic particles could travel faster than the speed of light and go backwards in time and therefore appear to be slower but are not. So don't just randomly assume that just because I am dismissing the fundamental laws of the theory of relativity that I am incorrect. I am not. It might not follow the theory of relativity as a subatomic particle for reasons currently beyond the knowledge of science and therefore it is stupid to compare it to light when it might go faster than it or travel backwards in time which is why they are so elusive in the first place. So don't be judgmentally dismissive like that, KentyBK.

"Just a theory" doesn't cut it, because scientific theories are well-supported by experiments and empirical data.

That's what makes it a theory over a hypothesis, not a proven fact by traveling faster than or anywhere near the speed of light to prove it indefinitely. Therefore it isn't a proven fact; only a currently well calculated theory. But, like I said, who knows if neutrinos obey the theory of relativity or not? You can't just assume that they don't because we don't know with the elusive subatomic particles. Therefore I am fundamentally correct in stating that they aren't necessarily slower than the speed of light or that they will indefinitely follow the fundamental laws of physics, because the just might not. See as a subatomic particle, the act strange and differently to other particles... Who's to say that they don't travel faster than the speed of light and defy the theory of relativity? Or that they travel faster than the speed of light and travel backwards in time to appear slower? It's impossible to know, only to hypothesise...

Yeah, but by implementing the theory of relativity, we are assuming that it exists. GPS might not undergo time dilation; it might just appear to via calculations and visual experiments. But it might simply not apply to neutrinos.

[quote]He's fully aware of what you're trying to say. However, that isn't how you do science. Also, relativity applies on earth just as much as it does in space, so you'd gain nothing from that little endeavor.[/quote] In what way would the theory of relativity exist on Earth? In outer space the satellites recording the time is showing that as it is relative to the speed of the orbiting planet traveling through space. Therefore if you do the timing on planet Earth rather than above it you won't need to take that into account and therefore you won't need to take the theory of relativity into account. So what you just said is stupid... [quote]Impossible. But somehow "eliminating" the use of the theory, you can no longer determine the validity of it. Not to mention that very idea is so ridiculous to even consider, because relativity sits in the very center of modern physics.[/quote] I'm not saying that it needs to be eliminated in its entirety I'm just saying that it is not necessary to use the theory of relativity if it is using Earth based technology because you don't need to take into account the theory of relativity and if it is traveling slower than the speed of light, the theory of relativity applies, but if it is going [i]faster[/i] than the speed of light then obviously the theory of relativity doesn't apply and therefore you can't use it because then you're assuming that it [i]does[/i] apply when it might well not be the case in the case of these elusive neutrinos. So therefore you eliminate any necessity to use the theory of relativity by using Earth based equipment. I don't know why that's so hard for people to understand... [quote]In fact, general relativity is an extension of Newton's law of universal gravitation[/quote] Yeah, but it is a theoretical extension of universal gravitation. Because it is the bending of the space because it is traveling at speed with great mass relative to the speed of light. The gravitation is the just the factual statement made by Newton that large masses like planets and satellites like the moon and stars like the sun have large gravitational fields. Even if you didn't know to define it like that, you must know that what goes up must come down. It just so happens that the first classical physicist to think up of this was Newton, followed by Einstein. And the theory of relativity may not apply to traveling neutrinos therefore it is stupid to assume that it does. Even if it happens that it does, the subatomic particles could travel faster than the speed of light and go backwards in time and therefore appear to be slower but are not. So don't just randomly assume that just because I am dismissing the fundamental laws of the theory of relativity that I am incorrect. I am not. It might not follow the theory of relativity as a subatomic particle for reasons currently beyond the knowledge of science and therefore it is stupid to compare it to light when it might go faster than it or travel backwards in time which is why they are so elusive in the first place. So don't be judgmentally dismissive like that, KentyBK. [quote]  "Just a theory" doesn't cut it, because scientific theories are well-supported by experiments and empirical data.[/quote] That's what makes it a theory over a hypothesis, not a proven fact by traveling faster than or anywhere near the speed of light to prove it indefinitely. Therefore it isn't a proven fact; only a currently well calculated theory. But, like I said, who knows if neutrinos obey the theory of relativity or not? You can't just assume that they don't because we don't know with the elusive subatomic particles. Therefore I am fundamentally correct in stating that they aren't necessarily slower than the speed of light or that they will indefinitely follow the fundamental laws of physics, because the just might not. See as a subatomic particle, the act strange and differently to other particles... Who's to say that they don't travel faster than the speed of light and defy the theory of relativity? Or that they travel faster than the speed of light and travel backwards in time to appear slower? It's impossible to know, only to hypothesise... \r\n\r\nYeah, but by implementing the theory of relativity, we are assuming that it exists. GPS might not undergo time dilation; it might just appear to via calculations and visual experiments. But it might simply not apply to neutrinos.

offline

DaemonVeril

217 posts

Peasant

Posted November 27, '11 2:31pm UTC

why do smart people always have to fudge it up with things i dont know about?

offline

gamer66618

274 posts

Nomad

Posted November 27, '11 2:31pm UTC

B) Even if the theory wasn't disproved, the particles would no longer be traveling towards the sensor, because that would be traveling forward in time, and these particles are traveling backwards in time.

Yeah, but if neutrinos are traveling above and beyond time, the universe and light and reality itself, it isn't obeying the linear concepts of time from one point in time to another and therefore it isn't traveling faster backwards It is traveling above time forwards and therefore it is traveling in the same direction, but against time and the theory of relativity. I'm only hypothesisng; I don't know anything for certain; but it seem like a relativistic affect that should be taken into account during complex scientific calculations. Dismissiveness is not the way to progress science forward into the new era; taking into account relativistic affects and the possibility that they don't apply in certain situations is. Even if the theory of relativity seemingly applies to everything else, what's to say that neutrinos aren't the exception to the rule? I always theorised that for every rule there is an exception; what if neutrinos defy the very laws of physics? Again, I am just hypothsising, but it seem like a perfectly valid point to take into account whilst doing their scientific calculations... Therefore you can't assume that the theory of relativity applies to this situation because it might well not if neutrinos are even the only things that do disobey the laws of physics and theory of relativity. Therefore I think that their calculations are flawed, lest they take every single possibility into account...

[quote]B) Even if the theory wasn't disproved, the particles would no longer be traveling towards the sensor, because that would be traveling forward in time, and these particles are traveling backwards in time.[/quote] Yeah, but if neutrinos are traveling above and beyond time, the universe and light and reality itself, it isn't obeying the linear concepts of time from one point in time to another and therefore it isn't traveling faster [i]backwards[/i] It is traveling above time [i]forwards[/i] and therefore it is traveling in the same direction, but against time and the theory of relativity. I'm only hypothesisng; I don't know anything for certain; but it seem like a relativistic affect that should be taken into account during complex scientific calculations. Dismissiveness is not the way to progress science forward into the new era; taking into account relativistic affects and the possibility that they don't apply in certain situations [i]is[/i]. Even if the theory of relativity seemingly applies to everything else, what's to say that neutrinos aren't the exception to the rule? I always theorised that for every rule there is an exception; what if neutrinos defy the very laws of physics? Again, I am just hypothsising, but it seem like a perfectly valid point to take into account whilst doing their scientific calculations... Therefore you can't assume that the theory of relativity applies to this situation because it might well not if neutrinos are even the only things that [i]do[/i] disobey the laws of physics and theory of relativity. Therefore I think that their calculations are flawed, lest they take every single possibility into account...

offline

KrissKhan

271 posts

Farmer

Posted November 27, '11 2:43pm UTC

I don't know anything for certain

It seems you just don't know anything when you want to ignore the relativity. Leave this place, go to school learn some stuff and question yourself. You just repeat the same arguments everytime...

offline

master565

4,103 posts

Nomad

Posted November 27, '11 2:45pm UTC

In what way would the theory of relativity exist on Earth?

So as it turns out, there's this cool thing called general relativity that makes up 50% of the theory of relativity, and it turns out that under general relativity, there is gravitation time dilation. As it also turn out, the satellites have nothing to do with this. The neutrinos are the things that they forgot to calculate relativity's effect on, because these things are so fast that the effect is fairly significant.

So what you just said is stupid...

Says the person who everyone on this thread has disagreed with about everything.

I don't know why that's so hard for people to understand...

Because you're logic is always so flawed, at least according to everyone else on this thread (aside from the guy who's post was "WIN&quot

@Rest of the post

Every time we make an argument, you, for the most part, just keep saying it's wrong and repeating exactly what you said in the last post.

[quote]In what way would the theory of relativity exist on Earth?[/quote]\r\n\r\nSo as it turns out, there's this cool thing called [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity]general relativity[/url] that makes up 50% of the theory of relativity, and it turns out that under general relativity, there is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation]gravitation time dilation[/url]. As it also turn out, the satellites have nothing to do with this. The neutrinos are the things that they forgot to calculate relativity's effect on, because these things are so fast that the effect is fairly significant.\r\n\r\n[quote]So what you just said is stupid...[/quote]\r\n\r\nSays the person who everyone on this thread has disagreed with about everything.\r\n\r\n[quote]I don't know why that's so hard for people to understand...[/quote]\r\n\r\nBecause you're logic is always so flawed, at least according to everyone else on this thread (aside from the guy who's post was "WIN")\r\n\r\n@Rest of the post\r\n\r\nEvery time we make an argument, you, for the most part, just keep saying it's wrong and repeating exactly what you said in the last post.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → The Tavern → Science discussions.