Speed of light beaten - time travel possible!

[Mickymoody]

E=mc2 works out every time it's been tested and it's been tested many many times indeed. It simply states that mass and energy are equivalent and they are. Ever since Lise Meitner realised that mass loss was due to energy release and both were due to fission, Einstein has been vindicated over and over. Einsteins theories are probably the most tested of all scientific theories and nobody has managed to prove them wrong as yet.

Did you read the title thread? E=mc2 DOESN'T work. That is what is being discussed here. The theory is a theory, that has been challenged, by science itself. So any reference to e=mc2, is an incorrect assumption.

If it simply states that mass and energy are the same, then that is in doubt. And until the new findings are proven not to be flawed, an incorrect statement.

It's like ages ago, the world is flat, well actually it isn't, then prove it. e=mc2, has at the moment been proved wrong. Accept science. It advances.

 

[TheOriginalTonkaToy]

The thread title? Supposition based on a premature announcement as yet untested and unverified and very likely to be a systematic error in the data.

Provide a link to a peer reviewed scientific paper, published by a *reputable* science journal that proposes that E=mc2 is flawed, supported by an evidence based argument based on repeatable scientifically derived data. Then we can discuss it.

 

[Space cat]

Speed of light beaten - time travel possible!

That's what the title says. The first part, "Speed of light beaten" is what the experiment appears to show and I've no doubt it will be tested many times until it's proved one way or the other beyond reasonable doubt. It might even turn out to be true.

The second part "time travel possible", though commonly heard, is a claim too far. Talking specifically about backward time travel, breaking the light barrier would appear to be a necessary condition but that doesn't make it sufficient. As I've said at least twice already, it's not at all obvious that 'the past' still exists.

There is nothing in the experimental data to suggest that E = mc2 doesn't work. Relativity predicts that it's impossible to accelerate a particle up to light speed because its momentum and energy would become infinite. But that's not what happened. What we appear to have is particles being created and travelling faster than light from the start.

PS: Are there any astronomers out there who can confirm this: When you calculate orbits, you must consider changes in gravity to act instantaneously at a distance otherwise you get all the wrong answers. For what it's worth, I see no reason why gravity shouldn't cross space at infinite speed. It's not an E/M wave so why should Maxwell's equations apply?

 

[TheOriginalTonkaToy]

E=mc2 works out every time it's been tested and it's been tested many many times indeed.

Do you happen to know whether or not it's been tested on a chemical reaction? I know it ought to work but it would require extremely accurate measurement.

I'm not sure although I have seen references to it in chemistry texts.

 

[wobs]

Are there any astronomers out there who can confirm this: When you calculate orbits, you must consider changes in gravity to act instantaneously at a distance otherwise you get all the wrong answers. For what it's worth, I see no reason why gravity shouldn't cross space at infinite speed. It's not an E/M wave so why should Maxwell's equations apply?

The speed of gravity was confirmed a few years ago with the aid of Jupitor to be about the same as the speed of light:

In September 2002, Sergei Kopeikin and Edward Fomalont announced that they had made an indirect measurement of the speed of gravity, using their data from VLBI measurement of the retarded position of Jupiter on its orbit during Jupiter's transit across the line-of-sight of the bright radio source quasar QSO J0842+1835. Kopeikin and Fomalont concluded that the speed of gravity is between 0.8 and 1.2 times the speed of light, which would be fully consistent with the theoretical prediction of general relativity that the speed of gravity is exactly the same as the speed of light.[18]

However this result was not without its critics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity#Possible_experimental_measurements

 

[opps]

If time travel were possible then surely someone from the future would have told us...

 

[hotrod]

Michael's from the future, he just hasn't realised it yet.

 

[foxhole]

I read this post last year, didn't understand it then.

 

[Mickymoody]

Are there any astronomers out there who can confirm this: When you calculate orbits, you must consider changes in gravity to act instantaneously at a distance otherwise you get all the wrong answers. For what it's worth, I see no reason why gravity shouldn't cross space at infinite speed. It's not an E/M wave so why should Maxwell's equations apply?

The speed of gravity was confirmed a few years ago with the aid of Jupitor to be about the same as the speed of light:

In September 2002, Sergei Kopeikin and Edward Fomalont announced that they had made an indirect measurement of the speed of gravity, using their data from VLBI measurement of the retarded position of Jupiter on its orbit during Jupiter's transit across the line-of-sight of the bright radio source quasar QSO J0842+1835. Kopeikin and Fomalont concluded that the speed of gravity is between 0.8 and 1.2 times the speed of light, which would be fully consistent with the theoretical prediction of general relativity that the speed of gravity is exactly the same as the speed of light.[18]

However this result was not without its critics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity#Possible_experimental_measurements[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying wrong, but, if other scientists are basing their experiments on a flawed theory, then all that follow are incorrect?

I see people on TV, that do not understand why gravity is so weak, compared to the other forces, and this find, might explain why, to understand the unknown force of gravity, that there is no explaination for...so in a few years, we might be floating about, free energy. The fact is; there is confusion, and unless unproved, the new theory means e=mc2 is wrong, and everything based on it is wrong. e=mc2 hasn't been proved wrong - now it has. Until proven incorrect. That's how it works.

So state as many theories as you like, if their basis is e=mc2, then all the related science is wrong. Until the new data is proved.

 

[opps]

Through empirical observations- You cannot prove things, you can only disprove them....

 

[Space cat]

Through empirical observations- You cannot prove things, you can only disprove them....

That is indeed how science works. No theory has ever been 'proved'. You formulate a theory which makes predictions then you do experiments, or observe natural phenomena, to see if the predictions are correct. If your theory makes successful predictions you start to believe it but that's not proof.

The results of this experiment seem to suggest that particles can travel faster than light. If this is confirmed many times it will NOT prove that E = mc2 is wrong but it will raise the tricky question of how a particle can get through the light barrier.

PS: If any known particle was going to travel faster than light, I suppose it was always going to be the one that's damn near impossible to detect.

 

[Mickymoody]

Through empirical observations- You cannot prove things, you can only disprove them....

That is indeed how science works. No theory has ever been 'proved'. You formulate a theory which makes predictions then you do experiments, or observe natural phenomena, to see if the predictions are correct. If your theory makes successful predictions you start to believe it but that's not proof.

The results of this experiment seem to suggest that particles can travel faster than light. If this is confirmed many times it will NOT prove that E = mc2 is wrong but it will raise the tricky question of how a particle can get through the light barrier.

PS: If any known particle was going to travel faster than light, I suppose it was always going to be the one that's damn near impossible to detect.

The basis of other science is that a set formula is correct, then base the principals around that, as being set in stone. This 'find' redefines all of that. So if the basics of understanding is wrong, then everything else that follows based on that is also incorrect.

For example - if Pi was proved incorrect tomorrow, then a circle is not a circle.

e=mc2 has far more reaching inplications....and may prove why gravity is a weak force. If only Albert was alive today. Can any scientist explain why gravity is weak, as opposed to the other forces? No. If E=mc2 is wrong, then it could be explained, by someone far cleverer than me.

 

[joinerjohn]

Well Micky,,, You say gravity is weak,,,,,, I for one am glad it's strong enough to hold me firmly to the third rock from the sun.

 

[Mickymoody]

Well Micky,,, You say gravity is weak,,,,,, I for one am glad it's strong enough to hold me firmly to the third rock from the sun.

It's proved to be the weakest of the forces, but unexplainable as to why. It follows that if e=mc2 is wrong, then that explains why it is currently unexplainable. Keep up.

Rather than mock. Embrace.

 

[RedHerring2]

It's proved to be the weakest of the forces, but unexplainable as to why.

Precisely what forces are we talking about, Mickey? It's stronger than the force I can exert on 200kgs of ballast. Is it considered to be one of the forces of nature, in which case, we might as wll give up trying to beat it.
It's stronger than all the Air Forces of all the nations on earth, because they all have to succumb to it.