Warp speed -again

lionhead · **Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:26 pm**

Twisted? Hm, never heard that one before

webtaz99 · **Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:59 pm**

Captain Digness · Commander Joined: 04 Dec 2003 Posts: 418

In the subspace bubble no mass is placed on the ship traveling at light speed.

EnsignParis · Lieutenant Commander Joined: 07 Sep 2001 Posts: 257

lionhead · **Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:30 am**

webtaz99 · **Wed Mar 02, 2005 2:20 pm**

EnsignParis · Lieutenant Commander Joined: 07 Sep 2001 Posts: 257

Captain Digness · Commander Joined: 04 Dec 2003 Posts: 418

so what if warp speed has not been proven. the earth used to be falt as well, right? Everyone said that that wasa right. but it was wrong. they saiod that they had proof. EX: When a ship sails out of sight they thought that it fell off of the edge of the world. when Gallilao that this was wrong he had no prove, but he was right. do you see where I'm getting at.

webtaz99 · **Thu Mar 03, 2005 4:39 pm**

Galileo had evidence in the form of repeatable observations.

(BTW, Galileo was imprisoned not becuase of his beliefs, but because he refused to give the Church enough time to slowly change their postion on the planets revolving around Earth.)

~Voyager Fan~ · **Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:34 am**

well i really have NOOOOOOOO idea

lionhead · **Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:10 am**

Hitchhiker · **Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:32 am**

Einstein had a few things going for him. Firstly, relativity was not just something he pulled out of a hat one day and said "This is the way the universe works." Not only did he work with relativity, but he was right about an awful lot of other things too. Therefore, he has credibility. Secondly, Einstein's theory is superior to that of the previous one (classical motion as described by Newton) because it explains the universe better. That's how theories work; we use the one that best explains the universe until we can either disprove it through empirical experimentation, or until we find a better one.

Scientists did not just wake up and accept Einstein's theory either. We had been living with Newton's ideas for hundreds of years now. Compared to that timeframe, the theory of relativity is young. Admittedly, back in the 1700s after Newton's death, physics was not exactly moving along at the same pace. But scientists needed proof too, especially because Einstein's theory is much like yours, lionhead, in that it exists predominantly based on mathematical and rational postulates instead of actual empirical evidence. And many scientists didn't like it for similar reasons, that they just couldn't accept the idea that the universe was so . . . relative.

So they did do experiments. Lots of them. Arthur Eddington measured how the Sun's gravity bends light around it. Special relativity, with some help from Hendrik Lorentz, also helped explain the Michelson-Morley experiment done before Einstein was born. One careful thing about science is that one cannot fit the facts to a theory; the theory must be adjusted to fit the facts.

It's not that we're unwilling to accept new theories in place of relativity. We are just stubborn. You're proposing a new theory because you are unable to accept the implications of relativity (which is that the universe is relative depending on the observer, such as in the case of changing masses). That's analogous to me claiming that I should not have to pay a plumber because I am unable to accept that they were able to fix my water pipes.

Relativity certainly isn't a law. That's why we do more experiments all the time, to try and see if the results correspond with relativity or not. Obviously, if they do correspond, it is further strength for the theory. If they don't, it leads to investigation that expands our understanding of physics.

You are perfectly allowed to disbelieve in relativity; you may even disbelieve in gravity if it will keep your energy bills down. But until you've got evidence that the universe corresponds to your theory rather than relativity, we remain open-minded, but definitely skeptical.

lionhead · **Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:28 pm**

i understand why Einstein's theory is the current applyed "Truth" and i do know where it comes from.

Also, i can imagine you would rather believe a guy like einstein then me.

But really, compared too Newtons theory einsteins theory was a leap forward like noone had ever seen.

However, what you must understand is that i don't intend to throw einsteins theory out of the window, many points he made are still true in my eyes but some are just not possible. I explained why they are not possible and still everybody just ditches my theory because its contradicting to einsteins theory(partially).

Example:
A while ago i heard that observatories and scientists have concluded that everything in space seems to move away from us, all around us. Most people then said "well, thats what einsteins theory says so it must be true."(or something like that). But i don't work like that, i only thought to myself "well, what do scientists know about space? It could be just an optical illusion, because we see it like that doesn't mean its true."

Yet, even though i tell people my theory, people still stay with the idea that its true because einsteins theory says so (long discussions with my dad and other people) or because no one else says so.

Of course, i can't proof its an optical illusion but through my logic i can't believe that everything moves away from us and only us. Thats ridiculous. So, i stayed with my own opinion, my own theory came after that. The theory i have about FTL travel isn't even deprived of einsteins theory. It just came to me.

It started with the "what scientists say" thing, i didn't buy it.
So i started to do i little thinking of my own and came up with what i understand about it all now( not everything of course). Like now i'm convinced that the theory that everything is moving away from us is an illusion of some kind that only lets us see it like that.

Over time i went into the whole FTL travel thing trying to figure it out, comparing other theories, hearing other thoughts.
Then i came up wit the "Light and Time have nothing to do with eachother" and it all makes sense to me. I stick with it, everything that challenges it is defeated and i get more convinced every time i test it. My theory can't be disproven with help of einstein or newton or anything else for that matter and compared to the other FTL travel theories mine seems the most logical one.

i never based my believes off of theories thought up by someone else, not if there isn't any logic in it.

Hitchhiker · **Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:54 pm**

What is light?

lionhead · **Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:56 pm**

Voyager2004 · **Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:31 am**

lionhead · **Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:00 pm**

Voyager2004 · **Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:20 pm**

Well now, who's not reading it right? You aren't. Was talking about your not "experimenting" based on you saying that you used your logic. You need more than just logic.

Now granted, you can challenge it. But you also said you "came to a conclusion." Now tell me, how can you come to a conclusion by just "challenging" a theory? You can't. Meaning, you didn't really come to a conclusion, you just came up with your OWN theory.

EnsignParis · Lieutenant Commander Joined: 07 Sep 2001 Posts: 257

First of all, I want to apologize to everyone. I was kind of harsh in my statements earlier. I edited one of the posts, but a few people quoted me so even if I changed the original posts, it doesn't change the fact that people have read my replies or won't be able to see my original posts.

Second of all, I do want to state, purely from a point of objective standing and personal opinion, that I still think you are wrong.

Science is based on what we observe in nature. Experiments can be reproduced and you can get the same (well, similar, due to human error and other factors) results. I stand for the scientific explanation of things, but it doesn't mean that I do not have a religion (not saying anyone would imply that) because I do believe in God. However, I think that instead of taking what was written in the bible as absolute fact, we need to interpret it and see what it means. We don't read the book Animal Farm and think it's actually about animals who conquered thier farm. It's an allegory. I think science is the rules God used to create the universe, and I think that some things will be completely out of our reach for our entire mortal lives.

But not everything.

Einstein's theories can be observed. You say that something else however makes sense to you, but thus far you have not given any sort of quantitative data for your claims.

I fully support someone coming up to the scientific community and saying that a current theory is wrong and that you have a new proposal for something that makes more sense to fit the facts. That is what science is. New ideas.

But new ideas should accompany experiments (controlled as accurately as possible) with repeatable results. A hypothesis you might have. But I don't think that your hypothesis would hold any merit to any scientific community, simply because you have no data.

I can't speak for everyone here, but I'm not trying to make you feel bad about yourself or put you down here. What I am saying however, is that what you should be showing us is evidence and how you came to those conclusions. It is simply how science works.

So please forgive me for coming off the way I did, I hope I didn't make you angry or upset.

lionhead · **Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:38 am**

I know i should be giving evidence. But its just that i don't have any.... But that doesn't mean i can't have my own theory, that i HAVE to see Einstein's theory as being correct. Never in a millions years and just becasue i don't doesn't mean i need too give a solid theory of my own with proven facts.

It will probably be nothing more then a Hypothesis for me, which i will keep challenging(like on a forum). Maybe one day i will put it all together.

Wolc · Freshman Cadet Joined: 08 Dec 2006 Posts: 5

raziel · Crewman Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 4 Location: Sarajevo

Hello, I'm kinda new in this area (QM) but it's very interesting and confusing at the same time.
So Einstein came up with this *E=mc^2, some scientists missused it and made atom bomb so my conclusion is that Einstains theory was right, now
using the (*) you get that the mass is: m=E/c^2 so by increasing lightspeed mass (of something) decreases by square of current lightspeed and at some abnormal lightspeed its mass is 0!

So increasing mass by increasing speed is not likely a good explanation!
This is just my opinion and please correct me if i'm wrong

!

Oh, yes one more thing, saying that some theory is wrong just because you have a feeling that is wrong is VEEERY wrong approach to science expecialy this kind!

Wolc · Freshman Cadet Joined: 08 Dec 2006 Posts: 5

Dude, E=MC2 is not everything Einstein wrote. Check out the theory of relativity.