30 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
30 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Is it Possible That Einstein Got It Wrong?

by Mark Andrews Banned
25 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
"Nothing can go faster than the speed of light," stated Albert Einstein.

But, was he correct?

Can something else actually go faster than the speed of light?

BBC - Search results for Speed of light
#albert einstein #cern neutrinos #e=mc2 #einstein #faster than light
  • Profile picture of the author MoneyMagnetMagnate
    Einstein never made mistakes...

    he thought he did once, but he was wrong...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4740439].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author The 13th Warrior
      Of course he got it wrong.

      The speed of thought is infinitely faster, by far.

      No scientist in the past will ever exceed the future sciences because existence is not constructed to operate that way.

      Knowledge is owned by no one, it simply passes from one to another one, as life comes and goes, we are only vessels, conduits, who choose what the elements and quality of induction are allowed through us.

      Because the speed of thought may have or use some elements rooted in the physical , such as the brain and electron pulses through the central nervous system, it is not bound by it.

      Einstein was dead wrong on that one, plus, he needed to trim his mustache and get a better barber.

      Thought existed before Light.

      Light is the wife of Thought.


      The 13th Warrior
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4740628].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author myob
    Originally Posted by Mark Andrews View Post

    "Nothing can go faster than the speed of light," stated Albert Einstein.
    This has not been disproven conclusively ... yet.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4740992].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author The 13th Warrior
      Originally Posted by myob View Post


      This has not been disproven conclusively ... yet.


      First REAL sight is with the mind , because your eyeballs can be perfectly fit and healthy, but if the part of the brain that controls it is damaged , you cannot see.

      Brain does not control total sight, because a born blind person has pictures or has inner sight of things, pictures ; there are people born blind with the optic nerve totally destroyed that can see pictures, even to some extent, like a sighted person, if but only briefly.

      De 'ja Vu is not a myth ; one element of this is because the ear, smell, taste, sight, touch are things of thought and mind.

      Our thoughts can realistically go to and perceive in the universe or beyond this realm to "see" and perceive actual places, conversations, smells that light has not touched yet.

      Not wise all the time for a person "wait" on "others" ( so-called "experts" ) to discover or validate a truth..., that is what is now and will lead to disastrous consequences.

      How long ago was it they thought the Earth was flat?

      Just a few days ago?

      They had "scientist" and "experts" at that time , also.

      The 13th Warrior
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4741084].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ibnujusup
    during that time, that is the best science fact available... it is acceptable if he is wrong...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4741356].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MoneyMagnetMagnate
    Thought - Like Light, can be controlled. Therefore, they can have speed limits.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4741474].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      Actually, the process of thought is relatively slow:


      Speed of thought and perception limited by unified neocortical gateway
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4741662].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author The 13th Warrior
        Originally Posted by myob View Post


        Actually the process of thought is relatively very slow:


        Speed of thought and perception limited by unified neocortical gateway

        Those quacks are confusing brain speed and thought.

        Experiments and data based on a erroneous theory.

        If "Rain Man" type of people can out calculate the fastest computer in the world, and he is by definition, defectively developed, what of someone not so defective?

        Brain and Mind work as team is instances, but scientist have no idea what thought actually is, pure thought.

        Interpret processing reaction as thought, to use as thought measurement, scientifically adolescent.

        How can you quantify a measurement of the living thing called "thought" when you do not know its energy classification as a whole?

        Electricity? Then we should be able to animate a dead man by electrical transfer, and have a sensible conversation with him.

        Nuclear? no

        Magnetic? no

        Atomic? Wave? Stellar? Thermogenic? Cosmic? Solar? Electro-Magnetic? Molecular? Sub-Atomic? Ionic? Inter-Stellar? Vibratory? Harmonic? Photonic?

        It has elements of ALL the energy that exist, but scientist have not and will not be able to quantify the TOTAL energy ingredients and classifications in this galaxy, much less thought, not for this present world.

        Why would I put all my eggs in some scientist or so-called "experts" basket when the best, smartest, by this worlds definition, in the world do not know how to access the other 90% of whats in their own skulls?

        Or know what it can do.

        The 13th Warrior
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4741793].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Riggs
          Originally Posted by The 13th Warrior View Post

          Our thoughts can realistically go to and perceive in the universe or beyond this realm to "see" and perceive actual places, conversations, smells that light has not touched yet.
          Our thoughts have no immediate effect on the world around them. In your mind you might be able to travel from Australia to Mexico in less than a second based on memory, but just because you're there in your mind that doesn't mean you're having any physical effect on that environment. Also (just for the sake of clearing up any misunderstanding), the speed of thought is nowhere near the speed of light. Physicists agree that electricity (not electrons) can travel the same speed through a wire that light does through a vacuum, but the "thought process" of a brain is not electrical, it is electrochemical. And if you're attempting to argue that then you seriously need a Physics 101 lesson.

          "Beyond this realm" infers a metaphysical perspective and given that metaphysics is a philosophical invention with no connection to real physics, either quantum or classical, that perspective holds little to no water in a scientific discussion regarding Einstein's speed limit.

          I don't understand why you keep expressing yourself like Yoda. I picture you stroking your beard so that you may appear wise.
          Signature

          Website: https://jacobriggs.io

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4746553].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mark Andrews
    Banned
    In an effort to bring us back on topic with facts rather than the speed of thought processes, which isn't what this discussion is all about...

    Do neutrinos move faster than the speed of light? - physicsworld.com

    discovery set to turn sci-fi into... - Google News

    From my favourite science magazine: New Scientist

    Faster-than-light neutrino claim bolstered - physics-math - 23 September 2011 - New Scientist

    Short Sharp Science: Today on New Scientist: 23 September 2011
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4741735].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      If it's "faster than" then the universe's speed limit is faster than we thought.

      But before establishing a new record, it needs it's own name. There's the speed of sound and the speed of light and the speed of .....what?
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      2024 Patriot's Award for Service to Veterans
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4741778].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MoneyMagnetMagnate
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        If it's "faster than" then the universe's speed limit is faster than we thought.

        But before establishing a new record, it needs it's own name. There's the speed of sound and the speed of light and the speed of .....what?
        What (Watt) is already being used as a measurement,

        So - what if we measure thought in "Homers" ?

        1 Homer = 1000 Doh! :rolleyes:

        1000 Homers = 1 Hoffman -

        1000 Hoffman = 1 Hawking -

        Then there is this guy...but they said he was mad. And he died penniless...

        Neutrons - Neutrinos - he was on the right track...
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4741947].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      Originally Posted by Mark Andrews View Post

      In an effort to bring us back on topic with facts ....
      This possibility has always intrigued me as well, and exceeding the speed of light has indeed been conjectured for at least 30 years, maybe more, although never fully confirmed. The problem has been an uncertainty of accuracy in measurements and a theoretical paradox: the very observation of this phenomena may be effecting the results. It stands at inconclusive until more experiments can consistently be duplicated. Great stuff.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4741872].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nelsonbiglar
    He has been right for over 100 years... in my opinion he was right at that time and for the last 100+ years.

    At the time its determined his theories are no longer valid or correct, it won`t be that he was wrong, it will be that he provided the reason to challenge him and think outside what he made as fact.

    Without his theory, wow... where would we be!
    Signature

    On the other side:
    www.fishingnorthernontario.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4741789].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    I think we should be debating the meaning of ancient Aramaic writings. I mean it is something most of us understand equally well, if not better.l
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4741902].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jeff Williams
    As it is with all "truths" since the beginning of time, it's true until someone inevitably comes along and shatters that belief. Usually, with brand new "truths".

    Back to bleeding myself with leeches ...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4746456].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author newbie12
    This definitely interesting , but I think further testing will show a miscalculation. Given that light has no mass and all.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4746574].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
    Already we have a few jokes going around about neutrinos:

    The barman says, "I'm sorry we don't serve neutrinos in here".
    A neutrino walks into a bar.

    Neutrino.
    Who's there?
    Knock, knock.
    Signature
    Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
    So that blind people can hate them as well.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4748265].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    I'll throw in this:
    I believe that the universe is intelligent. Why? The matter of the human brain is not unique from the rest of the matter of the universe, so I find the notion that it would act differently preposterous. The human mind is a microcosm of the universe. What am I talking about? I don't know...Carry on.
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4749402].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
    Whether he is right or wrong doesn't matter to me. It is still completely unthinkable to me that aliens could visited us given the extreme distances involved.
    Signature

    Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4749502].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    It seems to me that the phenomenon of "non-locality" in quantum physics (which I understand about as well as I understand ancient Mayan script) has long thrown a wrench into Einstein's theory:
    Quantum Nocality - Cramer
    "Einstein's 'spookiness' is now called nonlocality, the mysterious ability of Nature to enforce correlations between separated but entangled parts of a quantum system that are out of speed-of-light contact"
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4749883].message }}

Trending Topics