Strange faster than light question

[growse]

Originally posted by daz
When things (something with mass) accelerates towards the speed of light, they gain mass, THIS IS PROVEN. As they get closer to the speed of light, their mass increases exponentionally THIS IS PROVEN. Eventually, it gets to the point where there is not enough energy to accelerate the particle any further. This point is some fraction of C. Whether this is C/100 or C/2 or even 99% of C, either way there's two hopes of something with mass being accelerated to the speed of light:

1) some magic mass reducing effect (slim fast?)
2) bob hope

Not proven, demonstrated repeatedly beyond reasonable doubt

 

[daz]

Originally posted by growse
Not proven, demonstrated repeatedly beyond reasonable doubt

Fair enough.

 

[sedm1000]

Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
There is a hell of a lot of evidence that it isn't possible, along with theory. But no evidence it is possible, and backed up by little or no theory which is discounted by most of the "Theoretical physicist with letters after their name". You say you can post links, please do.

We aren't picking ones we like, we are "picking" the ones that are used by 99% of the Physics community.

Pj_uk, who posted in the other thread on Physics has just finished a Physics Degree. Growse is a second year Natural Scientist. I'm a First Year Mathematician. no one of us have "letters after our name" but we are heading there and know more than "someone with a GCSE in physics, and access to google". I'm taking the quantum/relativity modules next year because I've read about that kind of thing (in books, not the net!) and am interested in learning the maths, not just the verbal overview.

I'm sure I could corner a Trinity Colleg, Cambridge Quantum Mechanics professor and ask his opinion if you want me to......

What a big horse you have there! How do you ever manage to mount it?

Morat can`t expect to be taken seriously in the debate when he provides no evidence or precident for his ideas, but equally you cannot truly defend your theories by claiming they are accepted by 99% of the field. You will tend to find that only a handful of researchers truly understand every aspect of their field - the rest simply work on a niche and accept the rest of what they read as it is peer-reviewed (remember, internet articles are not peer-reviewed, but neither are books). The danger of arguing "Mr BigShot Scientist" said is that you perpetuate a mistake. You should repeatedly challenge and verify theories based on the most up-to-date data.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Originally posted by sedm1000
What a big horse you have there! How do you ever manage to mount it?

I was stating the fact we aren't "someone with a GCSE in physics, and access to google" which is what Morat implied.

Originally posted by sedm1000
but equally you cannot truly defend your theories by claiming they are accepted by 99% of the field. You will tend to find that only a handful of researchers truly understand every aspect of their field

I'm certain that over 10,000 people have studied Relavitity since its introduction into the university lecturing course back in the 20s. Some did experiments on it, others made predictions based on it. Others did experiments based on those predictions. no one has found a problem will relativity yet.
As for someone who specialises in some other part of theoretical physics, but not directly relativity, they would undoubtedly come up against it at some point in their career, either in Uni or in the course of their job. Its pretty hard to miss.

 

[sedm1000]

Originally posted by AlphaNumeric
I was stating the fact we aren't "someone with a GCSE in physics, and access to google" which is what Morat implied.

I`m not having a go - just pointing out that it is a naff argument (and can make you look silly if you have been taken for a ride by a guy just writing up his PhD).

Originally posted by AlphaNumeric

I'm certain that over 10,000 people have studied Relavitity since its introduction into the university lecturing course back in the 20s. Some did experiments on it, others made predictions based on it. Others did experiments based on those predictions. no one has found a problem will relativity yet.
As for someone who specialises in some other part of theoretical physics, but not directly relativity, they would undoubtedly come up against it at some point in their career, either in Uni or in the course of their job. Its pretty hard to miss.

Key words being "some" and "others". The lecture course argument is largely irrelevant - only a small % of students are a) awake, and b) capable of fully comprehending the subject (yes, even at Oxbridge). The real science only starts at doctorate and post doctroate level, and even here many only understand their particular niche. Simple test - ask a tutor who specialises in thermodynamics to explain relativity, then spot the mistakes. You would likely know more than they did.

I`d suggest that only a select number of clever bods are capable of analysing the theory properly, and there is a general pressure within the community to follow whichever theory they argue loudest. The "mavericks" tend to be (often rightly) sidelined towards New Scientist etc. This does not mean that their theories are worthless, however, and they should be reassesed with fresh data as it becomes available (though still there is a tendency to scoff at datat that fails to fit the accepted theories).
One need ony look at examples such as Einstein, Darwin and Gallileo to see precident for the consensus theories being uprooted.