Crosswords2 mins ago
Einstein Said Nothing Can Move Faster Than Light?
141 Answers
Einstein's theory states nothing can move faster than light. How did we get all the way out here with images from the beginning of time still arriving? It is also accepted that the big bang pushed everything out instantaneously. Surely, the big bang theory proves Einstein wrong.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ty_buchanan. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I wasn't going to post here again, as you "scientists" are so certain that you are the owners of the truth, and that I am a heretic, along with anyone who disagrees with you.
Even the word scientists comes from Latin scire - to know! Do you really know?
Look at the eminent authorities over the centuries. When the church was the seat of learning, they were so sure that the Sun went round the Earth that they threatened Galileo with torture and death -because they knew they were right!
In reply to this -
"And again, the challenge is to explain (a) what your alternative idea is, and (b) why it's better, and (c) how we could test it against the current theory. Absent such an alternative, it's not clear how you are contributing to a serious argument."
I say, look at your place in the history of "science" Are you so certain that you have the final answer to everything? If not, then have some humility.
I'm not saying I know any better than you. I'm saying that I don't know and that you probably don't know.
In years to come, schoolchildren will laugh at your silly ideas along with all these other silly theories, and say that the truth was obvious.
Enough...
Even the word scientists comes from Latin scire - to know! Do you really know?
Look at the eminent authorities over the centuries. When the church was the seat of learning, they were so sure that the Sun went round the Earth that they threatened Galileo with torture and death -because they knew they were right!
In reply to this -
"And again, the challenge is to explain (a) what your alternative idea is, and (b) why it's better, and (c) how we could test it against the current theory. Absent such an alternative, it's not clear how you are contributing to a serious argument."
I say, look at your place in the history of "science" Are you so certain that you have the final answer to everything? If not, then have some humility.
I'm not saying I know any better than you. I'm saying that I don't know and that you probably don't know.
In years to come, schoolchildren will laugh at your silly ideas along with all these other silly theories, and say that the truth was obvious.
Enough...
I don't know the final answer. I never claim that I do. Ever. Indeed, as I've pointed out elsewhere, the only reason I have the job I do is precisely because I -- because no-one -- knows the "final answer". But then, Scientists don't claim this either. On the other hand, the methods that they use to explore the search for the "answers" have proven to be the most successful humanity's been able to come up with.
This criticism about my claiming to have the final answer is just unfounded. The criticism of the Big Bang as a "silly" theory is almost certainly unfounded, as it ties together all observations made so far. If and when this picture changes, those in the future will not look back on us as silly. Instead, they will hopefully recognise that we made the best judgement we could with the available evidence.
Appealing to the future is always a risky argument because it's a double-edged sword. After all, how certain are you really that all theories we have today will be so utterly overturned as you seem to think they will be? In truth, you can't know either. It could be that the Big Bang Theory and other ideas merely gain in strength of evidence, and become more and more certain as time passes. Or not. But since you can't really make that prediction with absolute certainty about what is to come in the future, your best bet is to take the current state of knowledge as the one to base your opinions on. And at most points in history that would be a surprisingly good bet. "Current knowledge" is far more frequently improved, rather than overturned entirely.
I think it's a shame that so many people seem to not recognise this. In public discourse Scientists present their results, and it seems that these are interpreted as definitive answers, when they are not. Although it might not seem that way, the people who are most sceptical about the work of scientists are the scientists themselves. Calculations are checked, double-checked, triple-checked, by many dozens, if not hundreds, of separate people. The old calculations are also rechecked by subsequent generations, and new mistakes are found after all. Models are turned, refined, updated, discarded, replaced, revived once someone finds a new fix and then discarded again. And you'd be surprised how passionate the arguments can get if there is a difference of opinion over the most apparently meaningless technical point.
So no, I don't think it's well said at all. Especially, at the risk of being arrogant, with the remark "I don't know, and you probably don't either." With all respect, there are many things I do know that you do not. It will go both ways certainly, and there are many things you will know that I don't. But certainly there is no-one who can claim that their own bounds of knowledge are equal to everyone else's, and it seems to me that this is what the above statement is suggesting.
So many of the criticisms above, from venator and others, are based on misconceptions. Of the theories themselves, of how they were arrived at, of what Science is and how it works. I'm hopeful that I can do my bit to help change this perception, which is why I keep coming back.
* * * * * * * * * * *
And, for the record, this is not at all meant to be an insult of other people's intelligence. Anyone who thinks it is has confused intelligence with knowledge. Actually, although granted sometimes (often?) my posts might come across that way, I'm not arrogant either. Far from it, as anyone who meets me will soon learn. But then my character is not what these threads should be about, and ideally this will be the last time it even comes up in conversation on AB.
This criticism about my claiming to have the final answer is just unfounded. The criticism of the Big Bang as a "silly" theory is almost certainly unfounded, as it ties together all observations made so far. If and when this picture changes, those in the future will not look back on us as silly. Instead, they will hopefully recognise that we made the best judgement we could with the available evidence.
Appealing to the future is always a risky argument because it's a double-edged sword. After all, how certain are you really that all theories we have today will be so utterly overturned as you seem to think they will be? In truth, you can't know either. It could be that the Big Bang Theory and other ideas merely gain in strength of evidence, and become more and more certain as time passes. Or not. But since you can't really make that prediction with absolute certainty about what is to come in the future, your best bet is to take the current state of knowledge as the one to base your opinions on. And at most points in history that would be a surprisingly good bet. "Current knowledge" is far more frequently improved, rather than overturned entirely.
I think it's a shame that so many people seem to not recognise this. In public discourse Scientists present their results, and it seems that these are interpreted as definitive answers, when they are not. Although it might not seem that way, the people who are most sceptical about the work of scientists are the scientists themselves. Calculations are checked, double-checked, triple-checked, by many dozens, if not hundreds, of separate people. The old calculations are also rechecked by subsequent generations, and new mistakes are found after all. Models are turned, refined, updated, discarded, replaced, revived once someone finds a new fix and then discarded again. And you'd be surprised how passionate the arguments can get if there is a difference of opinion over the most apparently meaningless technical point.
So no, I don't think it's well said at all. Especially, at the risk of being arrogant, with the remark "I don't know, and you probably don't either." With all respect, there are many things I do know that you do not. It will go both ways certainly, and there are many things you will know that I don't. But certainly there is no-one who can claim that their own bounds of knowledge are equal to everyone else's, and it seems to me that this is what the above statement is suggesting.
So many of the criticisms above, from venator and others, are based on misconceptions. Of the theories themselves, of how they were arrived at, of what Science is and how it works. I'm hopeful that I can do my bit to help change this perception, which is why I keep coming back.
* * * * * * * * * * *
And, for the record, this is not at all meant to be an insult of other people's intelligence. Anyone who thinks it is has confused intelligence with knowledge. Actually, although granted sometimes (often?) my posts might come across that way, I'm not arrogant either. Far from it, as anyone who meets me will soon learn. But then my character is not what these threads should be about, and ideally this will be the last time it even comes up in conversation on AB.
The laws of science are the latest best approximations to what is going on. It is only when observations break those laws that new approximations are made and new laws formulated. It doesn't require any supernatural components, just an improved understanding. People can see Newtonian physics in play in their everyday life but that doesn't mean that they can readily comprehend what happens at cosmic or subatomic levels. A big problem is that the very mention of science results in people simply turning off, unwilling to make any effort to understand what is being said, and yet they happily go along with religious faction propaganda written hundreds and hundreds of years ago.
Jim360,
I apologise if you feel that I have attacked your character in any way. You are obviously a sincere and concerned person with a depth of knowledge in your field.
All I'm trying to say is that, taking only one example, the Big Bang has been presented as a fact in previous posts on this thread and in popular science, and that this hubris has been exactly repeated throughout the history of science.
Lerarning from this histoty, theories are obviously necessary, but if I stand back and say that the entire universe coming from nobody knows where as big as a golf ball or whatever is palpably as silly as the "accepted" flat earth and phlogiston theories.
What I was trying to say is that we are not clever enough to understand the universe we inhabit, like my beetle in a bottle, and we shouldn't present our theories as facts.
We are only a few hundred generations from the apes. Do you think we are at the end of evolution?
I apologise if you feel that I have attacked your character in any way. You are obviously a sincere and concerned person with a depth of knowledge in your field.
All I'm trying to say is that, taking only one example, the Big Bang has been presented as a fact in previous posts on this thread and in popular science, and that this hubris has been exactly repeated throughout the history of science.
Lerarning from this histoty, theories are obviously necessary, but if I stand back and say that the entire universe coming from nobody knows where as big as a golf ball or whatever is palpably as silly as the "accepted" flat earth and phlogiston theories.
What I was trying to say is that we are not clever enough to understand the universe we inhabit, like my beetle in a bottle, and we shouldn't present our theories as facts.
We are only a few hundred generations from the apes. Do you think we are at the end of evolution?
I disagree. When claimed knowledge isn’t ‘knowledge’ but simply hypothesis – as in the universe began as a singularity that popped into existence out of nothing’ – it doesn’t seem terribly sensible to base one’s opinions on that without question. Two alternative theories (both you will note described as ‘theories’ rather than hypotheses), are here.
http://
http://
To give him his due, the author of the second one does begin by saying that nobody knows anything for sure – but it seems to me that the jury is very much still out on this subject, and until it returns with a definitive verdict, curiosity, however seemingly stupid, or ill-conceived, or unimportant, or irrelevant to currently accepted ideas, which we must remember are not proven, should always be welcomed in discussion. It doesn’t matter how conclusions are reached – if it transpires that they’re wrong, they’re wrong. Like Venator, I recognise that we haven’t reached the apex of our evolution, and that where science is concerned the human race is in its infancy. I have no doubt that the future holds some exciting - and surprising – discoveries, so far from voluntarily limiting the potential of our intellect to the acceptance of what are in effect, indefinite answers, we must continue to question, we must seriously consider all possibilities, and we must never discourage other people from questioning. That’s how progress happens.
I read once, I think from Christopher Hitchens (but I might be wrong), that his mother always asked him what questions he had asked at school. Her philosophy was that intelligence is not to be judged by what you have learnt, but by what questions you ask – and personally I agree with her. There’s a lot to be said for curiosity.
http://
http://
To give him his due, the author of the second one does begin by saying that nobody knows anything for sure – but it seems to me that the jury is very much still out on this subject, and until it returns with a definitive verdict, curiosity, however seemingly stupid, or ill-conceived, or unimportant, or irrelevant to currently accepted ideas, which we must remember are not proven, should always be welcomed in discussion. It doesn’t matter how conclusions are reached – if it transpires that they’re wrong, they’re wrong. Like Venator, I recognise that we haven’t reached the apex of our evolution, and that where science is concerned the human race is in its infancy. I have no doubt that the future holds some exciting - and surprising – discoveries, so far from voluntarily limiting the potential of our intellect to the acceptance of what are in effect, indefinite answers, we must continue to question, we must seriously consider all possibilities, and we must never discourage other people from questioning. That’s how progress happens.
I read once, I think from Christopher Hitchens (but I might be wrong), that his mother always asked him what questions he had asked at school. Her philosophy was that intelligence is not to be judged by what you have learnt, but by what questions you ask – and personally I agree with her. There’s a lot to be said for curiosity.
Thanks for the apology venator. These discussions have got more than a little heated and also rather more personal than they should have, and it's something of a shame that this has happened as it distracts from what should be the discussion.
In case any more clarification were needed: No I do not think that we are even close to the end of our journey towards understanding the world we live in. I do think that there is much to learn still. I do want to encourage curiosity. I think the differences of opinion come from exactly where curiosity should begin in the chain of current understanding. I don't want to fall into the trap of saying that we're now only refining the "6th decimal place", as some Physicist famously said in the late 19th/ early 20th Century (right before Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, modern cosmology etc etc...).
Where does it begin? I don't see that there's an easy answer to this... or an easy way to put what I was about to say next. It's related in part to what exactly you mean when you question any particular theory. Saying that any particular theory might be wrong just feels rather ... vague. How is it wrong? Why might you think that? Is there a way to demonstrate this? Can you convince other people of this idea? If possible, can you come up with a better idea?
I think what I'm trying to say is that the technical work behind these ideas is where the questions are most effectively asked. But then in order to be able to ask these questions you need to go to the effort of learning the technical details needed both to follow other people's arguments, and perhaps even to spot mistakes and to find the holes in those arguments, and then to offer up your own.
That means that I see the Big Bang Theory, and the two different ideas that Naomi's linked to, as not so much philosophical concepts but mathematical models. The level on which they should be tested is then on the maths. What it leads to as a prediction, and so on. And, in order to be curious about that, as we certainly should, you need to be able to follow the technicalities. If people cannot do this, it's not a comment on their intelligence. But some of these technicalities are insanely difficult to get your head round, and also what tends to happen is that concepts are buried behind notation. And then you need to learn the notation to follow the argument. If people want to, though, then they certainly can. It just takes time and patience.
* * * * * * *
Well, I thought that was a clarification anyway. Naomi, thanks for those two links, and if I find time I'll try to give them a look.
In case any more clarification were needed: No I do not think that we are even close to the end of our journey towards understanding the world we live in. I do think that there is much to learn still. I do want to encourage curiosity. I think the differences of opinion come from exactly where curiosity should begin in the chain of current understanding. I don't want to fall into the trap of saying that we're now only refining the "6th decimal place", as some Physicist famously said in the late 19th/ early 20th Century (right before Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, modern cosmology etc etc...).
Where does it begin? I don't see that there's an easy answer to this... or an easy way to put what I was about to say next. It's related in part to what exactly you mean when you question any particular theory. Saying that any particular theory might be wrong just feels rather ... vague. How is it wrong? Why might you think that? Is there a way to demonstrate this? Can you convince other people of this idea? If possible, can you come up with a better idea?
I think what I'm trying to say is that the technical work behind these ideas is where the questions are most effectively asked. But then in order to be able to ask these questions you need to go to the effort of learning the technical details needed both to follow other people's arguments, and perhaps even to spot mistakes and to find the holes in those arguments, and then to offer up your own.
That means that I see the Big Bang Theory, and the two different ideas that Naomi's linked to, as not so much philosophical concepts but mathematical models. The level on which they should be tested is then on the maths. What it leads to as a prediction, and so on. And, in order to be curious about that, as we certainly should, you need to be able to follow the technicalities. If people cannot do this, it's not a comment on their intelligence. But some of these technicalities are insanely difficult to get your head round, and also what tends to happen is that concepts are buried behind notation. And then you need to learn the notation to follow the argument. If people want to, though, then they certainly can. It just takes time and patience.
* * * * * * *
Well, I thought that was a clarification anyway. Naomi, thanks for those two links, and if I find time I'll try to give them a look.
Jim,// in order to be able to ask these questions you need to go to the effort of learning the technical details needed both to follow other people's arguments, and perhaps even to spot mistakes and to find the holes in those arguments, and then to offer up your own.//
Again I question your attitude towards the layman. If that doesn’t mean that anyone who isn’t formally qualified in a particular field is not capable of questioning that which is being endorsed, what does it mean?
//Saying that any particular theory might be wrong just feels rather ... vague. How is it wrong?//
Mathematics or not - to claim that something came from nothing makes no fundamental sense which is why sceptics can be forgiven for thinking the theory might be wrong.
//Is there a way to demonstrate this? //
Perhaps, but science hasn’t found it yet.
//Can you convince other people of this idea?//
Why would you want to convince other people of an idea you can’t prove?
//If possible, can you come up with a better idea?//
I don't think doubters want a better idea - they just don't want to be fed best guesses masquerading as fact.
I do hope you make time to read those links. There might be something innovative there. You are currently promoting an idea that may eventually prove to be wrong, but you’re expecting the reader to accept it without question, so a cursory glance at new and alternative theories could at the very least prove to be a worthwhile exercise.
Again I question your attitude towards the layman. If that doesn’t mean that anyone who isn’t formally qualified in a particular field is not capable of questioning that which is being endorsed, what does it mean?
//Saying that any particular theory might be wrong just feels rather ... vague. How is it wrong?//
Mathematics or not - to claim that something came from nothing makes no fundamental sense which is why sceptics can be forgiven for thinking the theory might be wrong.
//Is there a way to demonstrate this? //
Perhaps, but science hasn’t found it yet.
//Can you convince other people of this idea?//
Why would you want to convince other people of an idea you can’t prove?
//If possible, can you come up with a better idea?//
I don't think doubters want a better idea - they just don't want to be fed best guesses masquerading as fact.
I do hope you make time to read those links. There might be something innovative there. You are currently promoting an idea that may eventually prove to be wrong, but you’re expecting the reader to accept it without question, so a cursory glance at new and alternative theories could at the very least prove to be a worthwhile exercise.
I think we're groping towards a consensus here, heaven help us!
The suggestion that only those with a deep understanding of the science can express a valid opinion sums up the "scientist's" approach.
The alternative view is that the big bang et cetera just goes against common sense, that the scientists are missing something and the feeling that the questions are too large for our present understanding.
In order to ask a question, you need to know something of the answer. If I were to ask a member of a lost tribe in the Amazon "What time is the next bus?" he would have a similar problem to that of the scientist.
Scientists are working with observed phenomena, trying out different questions and making hypotheses. As a non scientist, I agree their work is necessary and ultimately useful, but object to them telling us and our children that the big bang et cetera are established facts.
Some scientific theories do pass the common sense test, however - Global warming, for instance. The theory has not been proved, and the current state of the art is shown in an IPCC press release "For the report, about 1200 scenarios from scientific literature have been analyzed. These scenarios were generated by 31 modelling teams around the world to explore the economic, technological and institutional prerequisites and implications of mitigation pathways with different degrees of ambition."
This is scientist speak for it's all based on hypothesis, but it does make sense to most people, myself included.
The suggestion that only those with a deep understanding of the science can express a valid opinion sums up the "scientist's" approach.
The alternative view is that the big bang et cetera just goes against common sense, that the scientists are missing something and the feeling that the questions are too large for our present understanding.
In order to ask a question, you need to know something of the answer. If I were to ask a member of a lost tribe in the Amazon "What time is the next bus?" he would have a similar problem to that of the scientist.
Scientists are working with observed phenomena, trying out different questions and making hypotheses. As a non scientist, I agree their work is necessary and ultimately useful, but object to them telling us and our children that the big bang et cetera are established facts.
Some scientific theories do pass the common sense test, however - Global warming, for instance. The theory has not been proved, and the current state of the art is shown in an IPCC press release "For the report, about 1200 scenarios from scientific literature have been analyzed. These scenarios were generated by 31 modelling teams around the world to explore the economic, technological and institutional prerequisites and implications of mitigation pathways with different degrees of ambition."
This is scientist speak for it's all based on hypothesis, but it does make sense to most people, myself included.
Venator.
I would not rush into a feeling that somehow theoretical cosmology is of immediate benefit to our species. I would prefer it if these ghurus of science turned their attention to the more mundane matter of how we can preserve our post-enlightenment western democratic free-thinking scientific culture with terrestrial solutions that could help mankind.
Big money is being spent on cosmology. Why, when more than half the world's population is so mired in a combination of poverty and superstition that such matters are a total irrelevance to the future of the human race. In my opinion right now it is decadent and self-serving without dought.
I marvel at the patterns on my coffee mug (Boots made me a mug with the cosmic curl graphic on it) and for me the mystery of it all is enough.
Let's sort out Earth first and return to the imponderable nature of reality once we've sorted our relationship with the planet we currently infest.
I would not rush into a feeling that somehow theoretical cosmology is of immediate benefit to our species. I would prefer it if these ghurus of science turned their attention to the more mundane matter of how we can preserve our post-enlightenment western democratic free-thinking scientific culture with terrestrial solutions that could help mankind.
Big money is being spent on cosmology. Why, when more than half the world's population is so mired in a combination of poverty and superstition that such matters are a total irrelevance to the future of the human race. In my opinion right now it is decadent and self-serving without dought.
I marvel at the patterns on my coffee mug (Boots made me a mug with the cosmic curl graphic on it) and for me the mystery of it all is enough.
Let's sort out Earth first and return to the imponderable nature of reality once we've sorted our relationship with the planet we currently infest.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank16 mins ago
News24 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles30 mins ago
Technology37 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.