CERN breaks the speed of light?

[Julius_Seizeher]

Yes, Creationists start with a chosen end and their means are made of rubber.

But this thread has me thinking along other lines.

Like the irony of how Determinists (whether Biological, Social, Environmental, etc.) supposedly use reason and deduction (the province of man's mind) to deny the existence of man's mind.

Or how Behaviorists (like B.F. Skinner) teach that human behavior is not determined by a cognitive process, but by "reinforcers". But if you ask, "Why does a reinforcer reinforce?", they say, "That is irrelevant." To understand why a reinforcer reinforces, Behaviorists would have to make reference to the individual's mental contents and processes, which means: they would have to abandon Behaviorism. In light of my growing distaste for Determinism, Behaviorism, and all of their bastard children, I am increasingly skeptical of the alpha/beta congenital mold that I see thrown around on all of these websites. You'll notice that, once again, the enemy of this paradigm is the same one your scientists since Sigmund Freud have been trying to destroy: man as a being of volitional consciousness, free will, man's mind.

Or the irony of all ironies, the one to end them all: how Platonists and all the other detractors of Aristotle attempt to use the logic he invented to denounce him.

Personally, I am skeptical of the idea that traveling faster than the speed of light would allow you to travel through time. I believe time is more a philosophical construct than a scientific one, that it exists regardless of how fast you are traveling. And everyone must remember that it was Aristotle's metaphysics that has made every scientific achievement possible. He postulated that reality exists seperate and irregardless of man's mind, and it is the job of man's mind to perceive reality, to perceive, identify and integrate the laws of science that already exist awaiting man's discovery, whether he has yet discovered them or not. It was this revolutionary discovery that made the scientific method possible and thus all the achievements of man's mind that you see around you.

Though we all admire the inventors and the scientists whose discoveries made their inventions possible, we must take it back one step further: to the man who made the scientists possible. Wherever the influence of Aristotle has flourished in human history, progress and happiness was the result; the further men have went away from him, into the mystic swamps of Plato and all his followers, suffering and stagnation has been the rule of man's existence.

 

[Rubato]

Sure, what do you recommend that I read by Dr. Gerald L. Shroeder?

I would start with The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom.

 

[Alle_Gory]

I would start with The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom.

Thank you.

 

[SamTheHobit]

Sure, what do you recommend that I read by Dr. Gerald L. Shroeder?


This coming from a kid who most recently posted crap like this;


When a guy was asking for help, in "Think I have an STD..."

And made the "What time does the narwhal bacon?" thread.

You can lecture me on maturity when you have some yourself. In the meantime, I suggest you keep your comments to yourself, SamTheHobit.

Lol it's funny though!

 

[Alle_Gory]

Lol it's funny though!

You think it's funny. Why? Because you don't know any better.

 

[SamTheHobit]

You think it's funny. Why? Because you don't know any better.

Dude it's the internet.

 

[synergy1]

Personally, I am skeptical of the idea that traveling faster than the speed of light would allow you to travel through time. I believe time is more a philosophical construct than a scientific one, that it exists regardless of how fast you are traveling. And everyone must remember that it was Aristotle's metaphysics that has made every scientific achievement possible. He postulated that reality exists seperate and regardless of man's mind, and it is the job of man's mind to perceive reality, to perceive, identify and integrate the laws of science that already exist awaiting man's discovery, whether he has yet discovered them or not. It was this revolutionary discovery that made the scientific method possible and thus all the achievements of man's mind that you see around you.

At relativistic speeds, the term ' traveling through time' is akin to saying that this message board is ' all about sex'. Actually your mention of reality through the eyes of the observer is much more congruent with the basic tenants of special relativity ; ones perception of time doesn't change, but since all reference frames are equal - one can assert that if you move ( even at slow speeds), your personal clock will differ from others at 'rest' even if by a small fraction. Imagine if you went 0.99C - time for you would be going at a normal rate, but you would observe everyone moving slower. To them, they would be happily going about their day and notice that you are aging quicker than they are. Both reference frames are correct. C, not time is conserved here since both observers will always observe C.

This has been proven. If you take a clock for a spin on a plane , or up into space, those astronauts will be a second ( or fraction of a second) behind us.

Another proven concept which is readily applied is in nuclear physics. This would be mass/ energy equivalents which is observed in nuclear fissions. During neutron collisions ( thermal mostly), the resulting mass of the nucleide is not equal to the sum of the parts before the interaction. Along with the fission products produced, there is energy. This energy is the equivalence of the mass 'lost' during the interaction.

I will be curious of neutrinos go faster than the speed of light. I could have sworn I have heard this hypothesis like 10 years ago.

 

[Gaucho]

I agree with you synergy, that makes logical sense to me but fukc my head is spinning, this is one epic thread!

 

[Drdeee]

If u could travel through time where would u go?

 

[Rubato]

If u could travel through time where would u go?

As far as we know, backwards. That's according to the Standard Model. Essentially, to the degree you exceed light speed, that is the degree you would travel backwards through time.

Now, Quantum Physics and String Theory have a lot of interesting ideas that people have used to develop the multiverse theory, and there's plenty of disagreement about firstly whether its even true, and if it is, how it works.

Some people would say all decisions are ultimately binary, and every time you make ANY decision, 2 universe's split, 1 where you made one decision, and another where you made the decision you think you made. The String Theory postulates a certain maximum theoretical number of potential multiverses, and I don't remember what that is... read about it on newscientist.com a year or so ago. But I do remember that in the same article a neuroscientist said it doesn't matter how many multiverses there are because given the chemical makeup of our brain, the average person's compliment of neurons will only allow them to perceive at any given time a maximum of 2^256 multiverses, which was well below the total number postulated. That's a strange thing to wrap your mind around, that there may be more reality in existence than we are actually able to perceive!

Other people would say universe's only split when time travel occurs, forwards or backwards in order to avoid paradoxes. I think this is a rather lame theory because the only reason people have to defend it is that it could cause a paradox. That's not very scientific reasoning, and automatically precludes universal splitting for any other reason than to avoid a paradox. That sounds like directed physics to me.

The better question for me is not, "if you traveled through time, where would you go", but rather, "if you could travel through time, would it matter?" Would the reality you entered have any meaning at all, because if it was a new universe, you would essentially be leaving your old universe for a retroactive "clone" of the one you had previously experienced. It all gets very Matrix-esq.

 

[joverby]

I like to think that even if you went faster than the speed of light / just at very incredible speeds you don't actually go backwards in time but "your time" is going slower/much slower than everyone else's time. Which is why time is relative.

So, let's say you went the speed of light for a few years. You came back to Earth, everyone else is three years older. You are 2 months older? Just throwing those out there for sake of arguement / theory.

 

[5string]

To get to the bottom of this, we need to talk to Spock.

 

[Deep Dish]

I could be wrong but I distinctly remember hearing in the news, a number of years ago, that it would require the harnessing of all the energy in the entire universe to accelerate something with mass to the speed of light. This would render faster than light travel absolutely impossible since you simply wouldn't have enough energy in the whole universe. The point is you must consider energy consumption in all these theoretical pontifications.

 

[DanelMadr]

Given that quantum entanglement is real, there is a chance of "something" going faster than light....or through space/time.

I'm pretty mad with creationists, because they insist the wrapping is as important as the package - message. In doing so they devalue both. For spiritual reasons, matters f@ck all if we evolved or were made in our current form.

Actually for me, the evolution is more of a proof of God's existence than scribbles in some book. It even puts more responsibility on myself....and that's why they probably don't like it. Or they are so full of themselves, they think they(we) are so important and special. Nope....Ashes to ashes and dust to dust, my friends.

 

[joverby]

You like to say it's proof of God because your too smart / logical to deny evolution and science but still want the comfort of believing in God and an after-life. It's a comfortable theory that a lot Christians who are not ignorant, in regards to science, are accepting.

It's easy to believe things when you want to believe in them.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Dude it's the internet.

Yes and people tend to be more honest and open because of the anonymity. You've shown everyone who you really are.

You proud?

It even puts more responsibility on myself....and that's why they probably don't like it. Or they are so full of themselves, they think they(we) are so important and special. Nope....Ashes to ashes and dust to dust, my friends.

But we are important and special, we define the meaning of our own lives. Creationists derive meaning from some hokey pokey book and loudmouth preachers telling them things they want to hear. They are weak and afraid and would rather have someone else tell them what to do and how to live

 

[Gaucho]

You like to say it's proof of God because your too smart / logical to deny evolution and science but still want the comfort of believing in God and an after-life. It's a comfortable theory that a lot Christians who are not ignorant, in regards to science, are accepting.

It's easy to believe things when you want to believe in them.

And theoretically, not believing there is a god, is as absurd as beleiving there is one!

You don't have to be a christian to believe there is a god or not deny evolution, you can simply be a human being who ponders the question, 'what came before the creation of our Universe'? Nobody knows, nobody will ever know. It will only ever be conjecture and theory. What was once accepted as apparent fact, 'the big bang', is widely now disregarded and the theories trying to find a new explanation are impossible to prove. Two 'brains' colliding, and our Universe is the consequence of that? We are in a multi dimensional (10+) Universe. Blah blah. This is not science, this is becoming as much science fiction as anything any good writer could think up!

The idea that we are in a matrix as a lot of computer nerds like to believe, is literally about as probable as any other current explanation! Anything is possible and we just don't know. That is about where we currently are in finding an explanation to the Qs Stephen Hawking famously poses and talks about finding to his swollen audiences in lecture halls 'why are we here', 'where did we come from'?

 

[joverby]

I personally can't accept the fact that "we'll never know." I could never personally be happy with ignorance is bliss. I'm glad others are the same way to keep asking questions and advancing.

Think of the ancient Romans. They didn't know any better so they thought there was a God for everything. i.e A man rode a chariot and pulled the Sun up every morning. If everyone at that time excepted that that's how it was and we'd never know the real reason then we wouldn't be where we are today now would we?

 

[Gaucho]

I agree, I am glad there is continuous search, it is interesting to follow.

But let's face it, we aren't even close to discovering the questions we most desire to know. How do we ever possibly discover if our Universe was created by the rubbing of two 'brains'? And even then, how do we discover what created these 'brains' or the other multi dimensions in different 'brains'? How do we discover if some form of god actually created the Universe? How? These are things that are outside the human grasp, we cannot even see the other dimensions and we will still never know 'what came before the creation of space and time'.

The human race likes to believe it will live forever, but it is highly probable it will be wiped at some point and also highly probable long before we ever manage to planet hop. And even if we do, what happens when the Milkey Way collides with Andromeda? What happens if the Universe does expand until it freezes or collapses back in on itself? Humans are a race heading for extinction, just like every other form of life. Enjoy your life, that's what it's all about I say! Believe in a god, don't believe in a god, nobody can proove otherwise, whatever floats your boat.

 

[DanelMadr]

Yes and people tend to be more honest and open because of the anonymity. You've shown everyone who you really are.

You proud?



But we are important and special, we define the meaning of our own lives. Creationists derive meaning from some hokey pokey book and loudmouth preachers telling them things they want to hear. They are weak and afraid and would rather have someone else tell them what to do and how to live

That is what I meant. They take responsibility and give it to God.

We are (I believe) not so important to have an afterlife other than in form of floating unconscious dust/energy. I understand that it sounds disappointing and could lead to hedonism etc. but that is what I believe. And I also believe that despite of no afterlife/reward/punishment we should behave and try to make the world better place.

I understand people who want to take the Bible literary. They need a solid point in unstable and relative world. But I also think they should evolve above that need for their own sake.

I read the Bible. Old Testament is nothing but a history lesson - full of f@ck ups - written to avoid the same mistakes....very wise of Jewish tribe.

New Testament...upgrade from version 1.0 to 2.0. Unfortunately you can't "get it" unless you already know it. I guess Buddhism explains the same things more user friendly.

Bottom line...it was written by a man and should not be taken literally. If you do, you can end up believing that aliens are our ancestors. Or that some of us have more Neanderthal DNA than we would like.