Theory of Relativity - Wrong?

[Flipperk]

As I stated before...I knew that saying ANYTHING IN THIS UNIVERSE is absolute is downright idiotic. Nothing is absolute, the universe will always find a way to break any laws that mankind can come up with...


...and yes, the speed of light in the Theory of Relativity is stated as an absolute...all calculations are based on the assumption that nothing can travel faster than light particles...in other words, I think it was logged as an absolute because that is the only way an equation will work.

[Gh0stFT]

The string theory speaks about 10^500 universes, thats a 10 with five hundret zeros, i'm sure at least in 1 of them
something is faster then light

[PuppetZ]

This still dont mean relativity is wrong. Only that the speed of light is not the limit we thought it was....for some particular kind of particle. The prediction it yield are still very accurate and it's everyday applications very real.

The string theory is highly controversial and still awaiting confirmation or falsification. The current state of technology does not allow for it's prediction to be fully tested out. There are other contenders to the quantum gravity theory "race" but strings seem to gather the strongest lobby for now.

 

[Flipperk]

This still dont mean relativity is wrong. Only that the speed of light is not the limit we thought it was....for some particular kind of particle. The prediction it yield are still very accurate and it's everyday applications very real.

The string theory is highly controversial and still awaiting confirmation or falsification. The current state of technology does not allow for it's prediction to be fully tested out. There are other contenders to the quantum gravity theory "race" but strings seem to gather the strongest lobby for now.

 

It is inaccurate. End of argument.

[Chalenge]

No. Your wrong. The theory of relativity describes how matter behaves at near the speed of light. It also defines the speed of light as a constant and independant of the motion of any observer source or receiver. Now if you really want to talk about string theory and time travel you have to go beyond Hawkings and Einstein neither of which specialize in the mathematics required to discuss how time can exist in two different flavors at each end of a wormhole.

Keep reading though one day you may get it.

[Flipperk]

No. Your wrong. The theory of relativity describes how matter behaves at near the speed of light. It also defines the speed of light as a constant and independant of the motion of any observer source or receiver. Now if you really want to talk about string theory and time travel you have to go beyond Hawkings and Einstein neither of which specialize in the mathematics required to discuss how time can exist in two different flavors at each end of a wormhole.

Keep reading though one day you may get it.

That is exactly what I stated, just from a different view. The Theory is based on the absolute maximum speed of any particle being less than the speed of light. Because the theory assumes the speed of light is the fastest any particle can travel, the whole theory is based on the concept that nothing will travel faster...this is no longer true. If you want to talk about time travel, it was assumed that since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, then as you approach this barrier time would slow you down so you did not break that barrier...well, what barrier now?

[TequilaChaser]

didn't y'all get the memo

theory of relativity is defined as: asking your relative to borrow some money or in other words "C"  , and they come back with the conclusion of "piss on ya"

it's all relative

edit: oops... I got that backwards, my bad  I just woke up and was thinking of relative humidity


carry on

TC

[clerick]

... it was assumed that since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, then as you approach this barrier time would slow you down so you did not break that barrier...well, what barrier now?

It wasn't an assumption.  IT has been tested and proven that the closer you get to C the slower 'time' gets.

[Flipperk]

It wasn't an assumption.  IT has been tested and proven that the closer you get to C the slower 'time' gets.

Incorrect, it has only been proven that the faster you go, the slower time gets...that DOES NOT mean as it approaches C.

[wil3ur]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/09/110923-neutrinos-speed-of-light-particles-cern-physics-einstein-science/

^ In short, Scientists MAY have found particles, more specifically neutrinos, that can travel faster than the speed of light. What does this mean? This means that the Theory of Relativity is wrong...I understand that the theory is not all about the speed of light, but all of the assumptions and equations with the theory all have the limit of the speed of light involved...therefore it is all no longer accurate.

I never really believed that the speed of light is an absolute, to assume an absolute when we are talking about the cosmos is absolutely absurd!

Einstein, and now even Stephen Hawking, both believe(d) that time travel has to do with the speed of light. The closer you approach the speed of light time slows down, and that once you reach the speed of light you are literally frozen in time (respectively to us). If you try to go any faster, time will have to go backwards in order for you not to break this barrier...

....This process of slowing down time (or stretching it) has been proven, with commercial jet liners and even astronauts on the ISS, the faster you travel the slower you age...


...But this is ALL assumed to be related to the absolute limit of the speed of light...if this barrier is broken and is no longer the absolute...then what is exactly governing this process of slowing down time? Maybe time travel is not possible after all, maybe we just go faster and faster, just continuously stretching time to infinity...

Such as the mathematical problem of continuously dividing by 2...you half the size each time, but mathematically you will never reach zero... maybe time follows the same principle..you will never go backwards

Also the possibility that the area these neutrinos are traveling through is not as 'dense' as we think.  There's probably a very mundane answer for why these are traveling faster than we think they should.  Please note, they're not traveling faster than the absolute speed of light....  just faster than we think light should travel when being effected by Earth's Mass.

[Flipperk]

Also the possibility that the area these neutrinos are traveling through is not as 'dense' as we think.  There's probably a very mundane answer for why these are traveling faster than we think they should.  Please note, they're not traveling faster than the absolute speed of light....  just faster than we think light should travel when being effected by Earth's Mass.

Lights' speed is constant, just because it is being effected by gravity does not mean it slows down, it just takes a slightly longer path. And yes, we know how fast light goes, it has been calculated in a vacuum.


Also Neutrinos are not effected by mass, so density is not a factor.

[wil3ur]

Lights' speed is constant, just because it is being effected by gravity does not mean it slows down, it just takes a slightly longer path. And yes, we know how fast light goes, it has been calculated in a vacuum.


Also Neutrinos are not effected by mass, so density is not a factor.

...and if there's less mass in the area in question than we believe there to be, the light doesn't 'bend' as much and thus would arrive at it's point of measurement faster than we expected.

[Flipperk]

...and if there's less mass in the area in question than we believe there to be, the light doesn't 'bend' as much and thus would arrive at it's point of measurement faster than we expected.

You can not compare times of arrival of one particle not effected by and by one that does. They are comparing it to the speed of light in a vacuum, not effect by mass.

[wil3ur]

Lights' speed is constant, just because it is being effected by gravity does not mean it slows down, it just takes a slightly longer path. And yes, we know how fast light goes, it has been calculated in a vacuum.


Also Neutrinos are not effected by mass, so density is not a factor.

From:  http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

Is The Speed of Light Constant?
There are a number of senses to the meaning of this question and so there are a number of different answers.  Firstly . . .

Does the speed of light change in air or water?
Yes.  Light is slowed down in transparent media such as air, water and glass.  The ratio by which it is slowed is called the refractive index of the medium and is always greater than one.*  This was discovered by Jean Foucault in 1850.

When people talk about "the speed of light" in a general context, they usually mean the speed of light in a vacuum.  This quantity is also referred to as c.

Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant?
At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted:

The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.
This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s.  This provides a very short answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by definition!

[Flipperk]

From:  http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

Is The Speed of Light Constant?
There are a number of senses to the meaning of this question and so there are a number of different answers.  Firstly . . .

Does the speed of light change in air or water?
Yes.  Light is slowed down in transparent media such as air, water and glass.  The ratio by which it is slowed is called the refractive index of the medium and is always greater than one.*  This was discovered by Jean Foucault in 1850.

When people talk about "the speed of light" in a general context, they usually mean the speed of light in a vacuum.  This quantity is also referred to as c.

Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant?
At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted:

The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.
This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s.  This provides a very short answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by definition!

Here, watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAivtXJOsiI


Light doesn't slow down, the more dense the medium the more light bends to make it through that medium...its speed is still the same. You are thinking in terms of Point A to Point B, yes it will take light longer to get from A to B in water than air, but however the speed of light is still constant. Light is still traveling the same distance over time in water and in air, it is just taking a longer path due to its interaction with mass.