General Discussion 5

Hwd45 · Aug 06, 2012 2:12 PM

Latias fan wrote:

Clock-la wrote:
Seems pointless since there are no little green men.
Well we can't really go much farther beyond the solar system yet. We still need to improve the technology in order for us to do so.
Also I want ludicrous speed spaceships. But I know I'm not gunna see it in my lifetime.

Unfortunately, even if we did develop the technology to go much faster than we already are, there's a limit to how fast we can go and even that speed won't get us far.

Clock-la · Aug 06, 2012 5:57 PM

Alians will help us :3

Hwd45 · Aug 06, 2012 8:44 PM

Clock-la wrote:

Alians will help us :3

But there's a problem... If aliens aren't found within the Solar System, any aliens that we find would take years to reach us.

Rurikredwolf · Aug 06, 2012 8:57 PM

Hwd45 wrote:

Clock-la wrote:
Alians will help us :3
But there's a problem... If aliens aren't found within the Solar System, any aliens that we find would take years to reach us.

You don't know this. For all you know, aliens could have masters lightspeed and whatnot. They could be here in a nanosecond.

Don't say facts if you can't back up.

Hwd45 · Aug 06, 2012 9:10 PM

Rurikredwolf wrote:

Hwd45 wrote:
Clock-la wrote:
Alians will help us :3
But there's a problem... If aliens aren't found within the Solar System, any aliens that we find would take years to reach us.
You don't know this. For all you know, aliens could have masters lightspeed and whatnot. They could be here in a nanosecond.
Don't say facts if you can't back up.

For all we know it's completely and utterly impossible to travel at or beyond light speed if you have mass. It's been proven with evidence, as well as being a well known scientific fact. There's always the chance that there's something about travelling that we don't know or understand yet, but for now we can only prove that it's impossible.

Rurikredwolf · Aug 06, 2012 9:15 PM

Hwd45 wrote:

Rurikredwolf wrote:
Hwd45 wrote:
But there's a problem... If aliens aren't found within the Solar System, any aliens that we find would take years to reach us.
You don't know this. For all you know, aliens could have masters lightspeed and whatnot. They could be here in a nanosecond.
Don't say facts if you can't back up.
For all we know it's completely and utterly impossible to travel at or beyond light speed if you have mass. It's been proven with evidence, as well as being a well known scientific fact. There's always the chance that there's something about travelling that we don't know or understand yet, but for now we can only prove that it's impossible.

Proof about lightspeed being impossible? Not that I don't believe you, cuz it always struck me as odd, but I would like to see facts. And official facts, not ones you can find five minutes on google.

Clock-la · Aug 06, 2012 9:22 PM

Hwd45 wrote:

Rurikredwolf wrote:
Hwd45 wrote:
But there's a problem... If aliens aren't found within the Solar System, any aliens that we find would take years to reach us.
You don't know this. For all you know, aliens could have masters lightspeed and whatnot. They could be here in a nanosecond.
Don't say facts if you can't back up.
For all we know it's completely and utterly impossible to travel at or beyond light speed if you have mass. It's been proven with evidence, as well as being a well known scientific fact. There's always the chance that there's something about travelling that we don't know or understand yet, but for now we can only prove that it's impossible.

one word.

Magic.

nuff said.

Hwd45 · Aug 06, 2012 9:24 PM

Rurikredwolf wrote:

Hwd45 wrote:
Rurikredwolf wrote:
You don't know this. For all you know, aliens could have masters lightspeed and whatnot. They could be here in a nanosecond.
Don't say facts if you can't back up.
For all we know it's completely and utterly impossible to travel at or beyond light speed if you have mass. It's been proven with evidence, as well as being a well known scientific fact. There's always the chance that there's something about travelling that we don't know or understand yet, but for now we can only prove that it's impossible.
Proof about lightspeed being impossible? Not that I don't believe you, cuz it always struck me as odd, but I would like to see facts. And official facts, not ones you can find five minutes on google.

Well being someone who's about to study Physics at A-Level, naturally I find myself very interested in Relativistic mechanics. Let me explain briefly why you can never get a massive object to travel at luminal or superluminal speeds:

Our current understanding of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory is still missing one important area: How does the Higgs mechanism work? Currently, it's thought that all particles travel at the speed of light, but since massive particles interact with the Higgs field so much, it would appear as if they aren't moving.

The fact is, reaching lightspeed and so moving faster than we would if we couldn't interact with the Higgs field is impossible. The more energy something has, the faster it travels, but the faster it travels, the more energy is converted into mass, thereby making it harder for the object to continue increasing in velocity.

It's perfectly possible to reach a speed similar to but lower than light speed, but even doing that is extremely difficult. It's possible to increase in speed forever, but you will never reach light speed because you need an infinite amount of energy to reach it, as explained in Einstein's theory of relativity.

There's more explanation I could go into, but here's the basis; the facts, what we know, and the proof that it's impossible for a massive object to reach light speed.

Rurikredwolf · Aug 06, 2012 9:28 PM

You didn't back up your statement with sources and facts. So this is nothing more than an hypothesis. So while you can say stuff like that, and you could be right, you don't have anything to back it up.

You should know about these if you are A-level in Physics.

Hwd45 · Aug 06, 2012 9:32 PM

Rurikredwolf wrote:

You didn't back up your statement with sources and facts. So this is nothing more than an hypothesis. So while you can say stuff like that, and you could be right, you don't have anything to back it up.
You should know about these if you are A-level in Physics.

I know to do that but I'm not going to on this occasion, purely because I wouldn't lie to someone about this kind of thing, nor would I be gullible enough to believe an unreliable source tongue

Rurikredwolf · Aug 06, 2012 9:36 PM

So, basically, you can't back this up.

Hwd45 · Aug 06, 2012 9:38 PM

Rurikredwolf wrote:

So, basically, you can't back this up.

Just because I won't back it up doesn't mean I can't. I should be backing it up but I know for a fact that what I'm saying is correct- you could even look it up and find that I'm correct.

Clock-la · Aug 06, 2012 9:47 PM

but hwd is'nt a factor a physics, what is true one day can be proven false the next?

affter all nothing is impossable!

Hwd45 · Aug 06, 2012 9:54 PM

Clock-la wrote:

but hwd is'nt a factor a physics, what is true one day can be proven false the next?
affter all nothing is impossable!

No, Physics is not proven one day and disproven the next. If you go by that philosophy, then you can't rely on any of physics despite the fact that we know most of it is true... And why do we know it's true? Because we back up our claims with evidence. Previously, people would make either very loose connections or no connection at all from what's seen to its explanation. Nowadays although we can still discover rings to be not what we expected, we do know that sone areas of physics are secure. Currently, we know that there is no way of travelling faster than light unless your mass is the square root of a negative number.

Plus, a lot of things are impossible. Quantum mechanics does explain that a lot of occurrences are not impossible, but extremely improbable, but this does not mean that everything is possible.

Clock-la · Aug 06, 2012 9:59 PM

pluto is a planet.

pluto is not a planet.

Rurikredwolf · Aug 06, 2012 10:00 PM

Hwd45 wrote:

Rurikredwolf wrote:
So, basically, you can't back this up.
Just because I won't back it up doesn't mean I can't. I should be backing it up but I know for a fact that what I'm saying is correct- you could even look it up and find that I'm correct.

Then you will not be good at doing college papers. You need your sources in ANY debate, even if you are right. If you were in a debate team or trying to prove your side on anything, you would automatically lose because you do not have your facts.

So, again, proof?

Hwd45 · Aug 06, 2012 10:23 PM

Clock-la wrote:

pluto is a planet.

pluto is not a planet.

This is a horrible example. Pluto's no longer considered a planet because we decided to change our ideas of what we consider a planet.

Rurikredwolf wrote:

Hwd45 wrote:
Rurikredwolf wrote:
So, basically, you can't back this up.
Just because I won't back it up doesn't mean I can't. I should be backing it up but I know for a fact that what I'm saying is correct- you could even look it up and find that I'm correct.
Then you will not be good at doing college papers. You need your sources in ANY debate, even if you are right. If you were in a debate team or trying to prove your side on anything, you would automatically lose because you do not have your facts.
So, again, proof?

You must remember that this is a forum site. If I needed sources in papers than I'd get them, but here? It would be better if I had them, but I don't, so please stop making a fuss.

Rurikredwolf · Aug 06, 2012 10:36 PM

I'm not making a fuss

I'm asking you to back up your statement, which you have failed to do so far.

Clock-la · Aug 06, 2012 10:49 PM

Hwd45 wrote:

Clock-la wrote:
pluto is a planet.

pluto is not a planet.
This is a horrible example. Pluto's no longer considered a planet because we decided to change our ideas of what we consider a planet.

Its still an example nether the less.

Hwd45 · Aug 06, 2012 10:49 PM

Nope, I give up. You win. I choose not to back up my statements, and you insist that I do so. I'm not getting involved with this anymore.

bane dragon · Aug 06, 2012 10:56 PM

Ok, one thing that Hwd said that I find funny is that having a theory means it's fact. The thing is, it's not a theory because it's been proven. It's a theory because it hasn't been disproven.

Neotyguy40 · Aug 07, 2012 12:24 AM

I find it heartening that people on this forum are asking for proof. However, it's also disheartening that people on this forum are, yet again, rejecting theories just because it's called a theory.

A theory is a collection of facts based on empirical evidence to explain some sort of phenomenon. It does not mean it is wrong or right. Theories can be disproven, but they are still theories. They will never become a law. In fact, laws can be disproven as well (and have been for centuries).

Hwd did a pretty decent job of explaining the higgs mechanism and why we can't go faster than light. The issue that was left out is that we don't exactly know the exact details of how the higgs mechanism works. In fact, there isn't even a proven explanation for gravity (which isn't really useful in microphysics anyways, but should still be explained).

As for proof to back up what hwd said, here is an article on the higgs boson. And here is an article for why exactly we can't go faster than light. If you want to get to the source, however, you will need to do some more heavy reading. Here is an english translation of Einstein's Special Relativity paper.

As for the Pluto thing... It really is a horrible example. That's not science, that's linguistics when you're simply changing the definition.

Clock-la · Aug 07, 2012 12:30 AM

Tecnacly its still scisnce tHough, and i was'nt saying anything about the therorys my point was just things can end up false tongue but yes maby my example was awful

bane dragon · Aug 07, 2012 12:31 AM

@neo: I never said I rejected a theory because it was a theory, but just on the last page Hwd was saying (basically) that because we have a theory on why it can't be done, then it simply can't be done, period. This, by itself, is untrue since (as you just said) all theories can be proven false.

Neotyguy40 · Aug 07, 2012 12:54 AM

I must have missed that part.

Hey Clock-la, is your avatar from Soul Eater?

#1801 Aug 06, 2012 2:12 PM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1802 Aug 06, 2012 5:57 PM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1803 Aug 06, 2012 8:44 PM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1804 Aug 06, 2012 8:57 PM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1805 Aug 06, 2012 9:10 PM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1806 Aug 06, 2012 9:15 PM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1807 Aug 06, 2012 9:22 PM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1808 Aug 06, 2012 9:24 PM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1809 Aug 06, 2012 9:28 PM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1810 Aug 06, 2012 9:32 PM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1811 Aug 06, 2012 9:36 PM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1812 Aug 06, 2012 9:38 PM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1813 Aug 06, 2012 9:47 PM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1814 Aug 06, 2012 9:54 PM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1815 Aug 06, 2012 9:59 PM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1816 Aug 06, 2012 10:00 PM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1817 Aug 06, 2012 10:23 PM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1818 Aug 06, 2012 10:36 PM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1819 Aug 06, 2012 10:49 PM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1820 Aug 06, 2012 10:49 PM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1821 Aug 06, 2012 10:56 PM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1822 Aug 07, 2012 12:24 AM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1823 Aug 07, 2012 12:30 AM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1824 Aug 07, 2012 12:31 AM

Re: General Discussion 5

#1825 Aug 07, 2012 12:54 AM

Re: General Discussion 5

Board footer