It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by arpgme
Quantum entanglement is nothing to do with traveling speed
Einstein called it "Spooky Action at a distance"
'snip'
So the laws of physics still stand..nothing new to see here
edit on 15-3-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by pheonix358
Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by arpgme
Quantum entanglement is nothing to do with traveling speed
Einstein called it "Spooky Action at a distance"
'snip'
So the laws of physics still stand..nothing new to see here
edit on 15-3-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)
How can you say those words together. Because of a group of THEORIES the LAWS of physics still stand.
You do realize that that statement is an oxymoron.
P
Einstein stated that the theory of relativity belongs to a class of "principle-theories". As such it employs an analytic method. This means that the elements which comprise this theory are not based on hypothesis but on empirical discovery. The empirical discovery leads to understanding the general characteristics of natural processes. Mathematical models are then developed which separate the natural processes into theoretical-mathematical descriptions. Therefore, by analytical means the necessary conditions that have to be satisfied are deduced. Separate events must satisfy these conditions. Experience should then match the conclusions
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.
Not even close. We keep laws that we know aren't true because they are useful, and in many cases theories are more powerful and better than laws:
Originally posted by pheonix358
Theory is unproven, law is proven. It is that simple.
theories are larger than laws, and that "upgrading" a theory to a law would actually be a downgrade. The Theory of Relativity will never be the Law of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection will never be the Law of Evolution by Natural Selection. We know that Newton's Laws of motion are not, in fact, right. They break down when the objects are very small or moving very fast (relative to other objects). If your students go on to take a modern physics class at the college level, they will prove the inconsistencies (and, thus, the falsehood) within Newton's Laws. Why, then, do we keep them around? Because they are exceedingly good at predicting. They are so good, that engineers building skyscrapers need only consider them. One can even travel throughout the Solar System only considering them, but they are not correct.
Or hell , they coule be somehow we dont understand bound to the fabric of spacetime itself, which does not care about the speed of light, otherwise it would stop expanding faster than it. Or even it is a charge connection on some level we dont understand, though I doubt that.
My knowledge of science doesn't come from Wikihow but from years of learning, studying, and experimenting. I notice you fail to provide any other source you think is better.
Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by Arbitrageur
It's a problem when your knowledge of science comes from Wikihow.
Originally posted by HolgerTheDane2
What i want to know is how they can measure the speed.
Since we are talking entanglement we are talking about to entities that change state relative to each other.
If they are in the same lab how the blazes do they measure the time difference?
If they are far apart will not the clock being moved be slightly off compared to the stationary clock according to the well known clock-at-the-center-of-a-turntable-compared-to-the-clock-at-the-edge speculation?
Or is it a case of "Hmm, what should we tell the masses? Let's say 10.000. It's so much better than 5 and btw. Who the ***** can check it out anyway?"
Originally posted by StarsInDust
reply to post by arpgme
Doesn't faster than the speed of light have something to do with time travel? So if this is true, what I want to know is, if I sent my message today and I sent it using this faster than the speed of light process, would my message get there yesterday or tomorrow?
Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by arpgme
What does E=mc2 mean?
Does it mean that light can not travel any faster ? Does it mean that e=mc2 is the maximum speed for light in a vaccum?
Because it sure aint the equation for "c" the speed of light.
"c" in the equation e=mc2 is the speed of light in a vacuum.
Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by arpgme
What does E=mc2 mean?
Does it mean that light can not travel any faster ? Does it mean that e=mc2 is the maximum speed for light in a vaccum?
Because it sure aint the equation for "c" the speed of light.
"c" in the equation e=mc2 is the speed of light in a vacuum.
The question doesn't make sense. c is the speed of light in a vacuum, which is a constant. So you can't talk about c going up or down.
Originally posted by greatfriendbadfoe
so I ask the question again that I asked on page 1. If you have a certain amount of energy and there is such a beast as faster than the speed of light, then as c (hence c squared) goes up, the mass will reduce. ie they are inversely proportional in this equation. so where did arp get the increase in mass ?????????
So in this view, the extra mass doesn't really have to come from anywhere as the speed of light is approached.
It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass
of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the ’rest mass’ m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion.
— Albert Einstein in letter to Lincoln Barnett, 19 June 1948 (quote from L. B. Okun (1989), p. 42[1])