[004]
boldingd
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
@RobinZimm While \'\'you\'\' obviously know, I\'ll state it for everyone else: that \'\'if\'\' there is a pretty huge one. Like, \
to:
@RobinZimm While \\\'\\\'you\\\'\\\' obviously know, I\\\'ll state it for everyone else: that \\\'\\\'if\\\'\\\' there is a pretty huge one. Like, \\\"just about as fundamental as Newton\\\'s Laws of Motion or the conservation of energy\\\" huge. The discovery of a privileged reference frame like that would throw out almost a century of (very, very well-tested) physics. I can state with some confidence that no such thing exists. In fact, as I understand it, it was the fact that models based on the assumption that such a frame \\\'\\\'did\\\'\\\' exist \\\'\\\'where failing miserably when tested\\\'\\\' that led to the development of the theory of relativity in the first place!
My history is pretty week, but this is what I remember being taught: in the late 19th century, people still believed that there was a medium called \\\"ether\\\", and that light waves where propagating through this medium. In effect, they thought this medium might define a privileged, universal reference frame. They tried measuring the speed of light when they where at rest, and then when they where moving (with respect to the light source), thinking the person moving around would measure a slightly different velocity (because he was moving relative to the stationary ether): basically, they where thinking that the light-waves would propagate through the ether at a certain velocity \\\'\\\'with respect to the ether\\\'s fixed frame of reference\\\'\\\' (like mechanical wave propagate through matter), and that a person moving around with respect to the ether would see the difference in his velocity and the ether\\\'s velocity represented as a change in the speed that he would measure for the light wave. It didn\\\'t work: the same velocity was recorded (i.e. the person moving around saw the light-wave moving at 300,000 km/s in \\\'\\\'his frame\\\'\\\', even as the person at rest measured the light wave moving at 300,000 km/s in \\\'\\\'his\\\'\\\' frame too). [[YourHeadASplode Head A Splode]]. It took years and years of head-scratching for someone (no points for guessing who) to figure out that the problem was the assumption that there was a fundamental rest frame.
FYI, if you can\\\'t tell, it gets under my skin the way people seem to assume that complex or counter-intuitive theories, like relativity, are ass-pulls, and that scientists do this kind of stuff because they\\\'re deluded at best, or malicious jerks at worst. I suspect most people think that Einstein just got really drunk one night, and came up with relativity as a joke, and then got together with a bunch of his egg-head buddies, and they all said, \\\"what the hell, we\\\'ll assume this until proven otherwise.\\\" I bet most people would be shocked to learn that it went the other way \\\'round: scientists got weird experimental results that they could not explain, and not for lack of trying! Relativity, weird and counter-intuitive tho it was, \\\'\\\'was the only model that fit the experimental results\\\'\\\'.
@girlyboy I\\\'m pretty sure that you where right the first time, and whoever\\\'s trying to convince you that General Relativity has some kind of mechanic for causality-respecting faster-than-light travel is... confused. I think you\\\'ll find that there are lots and lots of people, with a tenuous-at-best grasp on physics, who will none-the-less start trying to convince you of all kinds of things, based on something they saw on the Discovery channel... or the Sci-Fi channel... or their friend told them... or they read on this one web-forum about \\\'\\\'cats\\\'\\\'...
My history is pretty week, but this is what I remember being taught: in the late 19th century, people still believed that there was a medium called \\\"ether\\\", and that light waves where propagating through this medium. In effect, they thought this medium might define a privileged, universal reference frame. They tried measuring the speed of light when they where at rest, and then when they where moving (with respect to the light source), thinking the person moving around would measure a slightly different velocity (because he was moving relative to the stationary ether): basically, they where thinking that the light-waves would propagate through the ether at a certain velocity \\\'\\\'with respect to the ether\\\'s fixed frame of reference\\\'\\\' (like mechanical wave propagate through matter), and that a person moving around with respect to the ether would see the difference in his velocity and the ether\\\'s velocity represented as a change in the speed that he would measure for the light wave. It didn\\\'t work: the same velocity was recorded (i.e. the person moving around saw the light-wave moving at 300,000 km/s in \\\'\\\'his frame\\\'\\\', even as the person at rest measured the light wave moving at 300,000 km/s in \\\'\\\'his\\\'\\\' frame too). [[YourHeadASplode Head A Splode]]. It took years and years of head-scratching for someone (no points for guessing who) to figure out that the problem was the assumption that there was a fundamental rest frame.
FYI, if you can\\\'t tell, it gets under my skin the way people seem to assume that complex or counter-intuitive theories, like relativity, are ass-pulls, and that scientists do this kind of stuff because they\\\'re deluded at best, or malicious jerks at worst. I suspect most people think that Einstein just got really drunk one night, and came up with relativity as a joke, and then got together with a bunch of his egg-head buddies, and they all said, \\\"what the hell, we\\\'ll assume this until proven otherwise.\\\" I bet most people would be shocked to learn that it went the other way \\\'round: scientists got weird experimental results that they could not explain, and not for lack of trying! Relativity, weird and counter-intuitive tho it was, \\\'\\\'was the only model that fit the experimental results\\\'\\\'.
@girlyboy I\\\'m pretty sure that you where right the first time, and whoever\\\'s trying to convince you that General Relativity has some kind of mechanic for causality-respecting faster-than-light travel is... confused. I think you\\\'ll find that there are lots and lots of people, with a tenuous-at-best grasp on physics, who will none-the-less start trying to convince you of all kinds of things, based on something they saw on the Discovery channel... or the Sci-Fi channel... or their friend told them... or they read on this one web-forum about \\\'\\\'cats\\\'\\\'...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
@RobinZimm While \'\'you\'\' obviously know, I\'ll state it for everyone else: that \'\'if\'\' there is a pretty huge one. Like, \
to:
@RobinZimm While \\\'\\\'you\\\'\\\' obviously know, I\\\'ll state it for everyone else: that \\\'\\\'if\\\'\\\' there is a pretty huge one. Like, \\\"just about as fundamental as Newton\\\'s Laws of Motion or the conservation of energy\\\" huge. The discovery of a privileged reference frame like that would throw out almost a century of (very, very well-tested) physics. I can state with some confidence that no such thing exists. In fact, as I understand it, it was the fact that models based on the assumption that such a frame \\\'\\\'did\\\'\\\' exist \\\'\\\'where failing miserably when tested\\\'\\\' that led to the development of the theory of relativity in the first place!
My history is pretty week, but this is what I remember being taught: in the late 19th century, people still believed that there was a medium called \\\"ether\\\", and that light waves where propagating through this medium. In effect, they thought this medium might define a privileged, universal reference frame. They tried measuring the speed of light when they where at rest, and then when they where moving (with respect to the light source), thinking the person moving around would measure a slightly different velocity (because he was moving relative to the stationary ether): basically, they where thinking that the light-waves would propagate through the ether at a certain velocity \\\'\\\'with respect to the ether\\\'s fixed frame of reference\\\'\\\' (like mechanical wave propagate through matter), and that a person moving around with respect to the ether would see the difference in his velocity and the ether\\\'s velocity represented as a change in the speed that he would measure for the light wave. It didn\\\'t work: the same velocity was recorded (i.e. the person moving around saw the light-wave moving at 300,000 km/s in \\\'\\\'his frame\\\'\\\', even as the person at rest measured the light wave moving at 300,000 km/s in \\\'\\\'his\\\'\\\' frame too). [[YourHeadASplode Head A Splode]]. It took years and years of head-scratching for someone (no points for guessing who) to figure out that the problem was the assumption that there was a fundamental rest frame.
@girlyboy I\\\'m pretty sure that you where right the first time, and whoever\\\'s trying to convince you that General Relativity has some kind of mechanic for causality-respecting faster-than-light travel is... confused. I think you\\\'ll find that there are lots and lots of people, with a tenuous-at-best grasp on physics, who will none-the-less start trying to convince you of all kinds of things, based on something they saw on the Discovery channel... or the Sci-Fi channel... or their friend told them... or they read on this one web-forum about \\\'\\\'cats\\\'\\\'...
My history is pretty week, but this is what I remember being taught: in the late 19th century, people still believed that there was a medium called \\\"ether\\\", and that light waves where propagating through this medium. In effect, they thought this medium might define a privileged, universal reference frame. They tried measuring the speed of light when they where at rest, and then when they where moving (with respect to the light source), thinking the person moving around would measure a slightly different velocity (because he was moving relative to the stationary ether): basically, they where thinking that the light-waves would propagate through the ether at a certain velocity \\\'\\\'with respect to the ether\\\'s fixed frame of reference\\\'\\\' (like mechanical wave propagate through matter), and that a person moving around with respect to the ether would see the difference in his velocity and the ether\\\'s velocity represented as a change in the speed that he would measure for the light wave. It didn\\\'t work: the same velocity was recorded (i.e. the person moving around saw the light-wave moving at 300,000 km/s in \\\'\\\'his frame\\\'\\\', even as the person at rest measured the light wave moving at 300,000 km/s in \\\'\\\'his\\\'\\\' frame too). [[YourHeadASplode Head A Splode]]. It took years and years of head-scratching for someone (no points for guessing who) to figure out that the problem was the assumption that there was a fundamental rest frame.
@girlyboy I\\\'m pretty sure that you where right the first time, and whoever\\\'s trying to convince you that General Relativity has some kind of mechanic for causality-respecting faster-than-light travel is... confused. I think you\\\'ll find that there are lots and lots of people, with a tenuous-at-best grasp on physics, who will none-the-less start trying to convince you of all kinds of things, based on something they saw on the Discovery channel... or the Sci-Fi channel... or their friend told them... or they read on this one web-forum about \\\'\\\'cats\\\'\\\'...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
@RobinZimm While \'\'you\'\' obviously know, I\'ll state it for everyone else: that \'\'if\'\' there is a pretty huge one. Like, \
to:
@RobinZimm While \\\'\\\'you\\\'\\\' obviously know, I\\\'ll state it for everyone else: that \\\'\\\'if\\\'\\\' there is a pretty huge one. Like, \\\"just about as fundamental as Newton\\\'s Laws of Motion or the conservation of energy\\\" huge. The discovery of a privileged reference frame like that would throw out almost a century of (very, very well-tested) physics. I can state with some confidence that no such thing exists. In fact, as I understand it, it was the fact that models based on the assumption that such a frame \\\'\\\'did\\\'\\\' exist \\\'\\\'where failing miserably when tested\\\'\\\' that led to the development of the theory of relativity in the first place!
My history is pretty week, but this is what I remember being taught: in the late 19th century, people still believed that there was a medium called \\\"ether\\\", and that light waves where propagating through this medium. In effect, they thought this medium might define a privileged, universal reference frame. They tried measuring the speed of light when they where at rest, and then when they where moving (with respect to the light source), thinking the person moving around would measure a slightly different velocity (because he was moving relative to the stationary ether): basically, they where thinking that the light-waves would propagate through the ether at a certain velocity \\\'\\\'with respect to the ether\\\'s fixed frame of reference\\\'\\\' (like mechanical wave propagate through matter), and that a person moving around with respect to the ether would see the difference in his velocity and the ether\\\'s velocity represented as a change in the speed that he would measure for the light wave. It didn\\\'t work: the same velocity was recorded (i.e. the person moving around saw the light-wave moving at 300,000 km/s in \\\'\\\'his frame\\\'\\\', even as the person at rest measured the light wave moving at 300,000 km/s in \\\'\\\'his\\\'\\\' frame too). {{YourHeadASplode Head A Splode}}. It took years and years of head-scratching for someone (no points for guessing who) to figure out that the problem was the assumption that there was a fundamental rest frame.
@girlyboy I\\\'m pretty sure that you where right the first time, and whoever\\\'s trying to convince you that General Relativity has some kind of mechanic for causality-respecting faster-than-light travel is... confused. I think you\\\'ll find that there are lots and lots of people, with a tenuous-at-best grasp on physics, who will none-the-less start trying to convince you of all kinds of things, based on something they saw on the Discovery channel... or the Sci-Fi channel... or their friend told them... or they read on this one web-forum about \\\'\\\'cats\\\'\\\'...
My history is pretty week, but this is what I remember being taught: in the late 19th century, people still believed that there was a medium called \\\"ether\\\", and that light waves where propagating through this medium. In effect, they thought this medium might define a privileged, universal reference frame. They tried measuring the speed of light when they where at rest, and then when they where moving (with respect to the light source), thinking the person moving around would measure a slightly different velocity (because he was moving relative to the stationary ether): basically, they where thinking that the light-waves would propagate through the ether at a certain velocity \\\'\\\'with respect to the ether\\\'s fixed frame of reference\\\'\\\' (like mechanical wave propagate through matter), and that a person moving around with respect to the ether would see the difference in his velocity and the ether\\\'s velocity represented as a change in the speed that he would measure for the light wave. It didn\\\'t work: the same velocity was recorded (i.e. the person moving around saw the light-wave moving at 300,000 km/s in \\\'\\\'his frame\\\'\\\', even as the person at rest measured the light wave moving at 300,000 km/s in \\\'\\\'his\\\'\\\' frame too). {{YourHeadASplode Head A Splode}}. It took years and years of head-scratching for someone (no points for guessing who) to figure out that the problem was the assumption that there was a fundamental rest frame.
@girlyboy I\\\'m pretty sure that you where right the first time, and whoever\\\'s trying to convince you that General Relativity has some kind of mechanic for causality-respecting faster-than-light travel is... confused. I think you\\\'ll find that there are lots and lots of people, with a tenuous-at-best grasp on physics, who will none-the-less start trying to convince you of all kinds of things, based on something they saw on the Discovery channel... or the Sci-Fi channel... or their friend told them... or they read on this one web-forum about \\\'\\\'cats\\\'\\\'...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
@RobinZimm While \'\'you\'\' obviously know, I\'ll state it for everyone else: that \'\'if\'\' there is a pretty huge one. Like, \
to:
@RobinZimm While \\\'\\\'you\\\'\\\' obviously know, I\\\'ll state it for everyone else: that \\\'\\\'if\\\'\\\' there is a pretty huge one. Like, \\\"just about as fundamental as Newton\\\'s Laws of Motion or the conservation of energy\\\" huge. The discovery of a privileged reference frame like that would throw out almost a century of (very, very well-tested) physics. I can state with some confidence that no such thing exists. In fact, as I understand it, it was the fact that models based on the assumption that such a frame \\\'\\\'did\\\'\\\' exist \\\'\\\'where failing miserably when tested\\\'\\\' that led to the development of the theory of relativity in the first place!
My history is pretty week, but this is what I remember being taught: in the late 19th century, people still believed that there was a medium called \\\"ether\\\", and that light waves where propagating through this medium. In effect, they thought this medium might define a privileged, universal reference frame. They tried measuring the speed of light when they where at rest, and then when they where moving (with respect to the light source), thinking the person moving around would measure a slightly different velocity (because he was moving relative to the stationary ether): basically, they where thinking that the light-waves would propagate through the ether at a certain velocity \\\'\\\'with respect to the ether\\\'s fixed frame of reference\\\'\\\' (like mechanical wave propagate through matter), and that a person moving around with respect to the ether would see the difference in his velocity and the ether\\\'s velocity represented as a change in the speed that he would measure for the light wave. It didn\\\'t work: the same velocity was recorded (i.e. the person moving around saw the light-wave moving at 300,000 km/s in \\\'\\\'his frame\\\'\\\', even as the person at rest measured the light wave moving at 300,000 km/s in \\\'\\\'his\\\'\\\' frame too). HeadASplode. It took years and years of head-scratching for someone (no points for guessing who) to figure out that the problem was the assumption that there was a fundamental rest frame.
@girlyboy I\\\'m pretty sure that you where right the first time, and whoever\\\'s trying to convince you that General Relativity has some kind of mechanic for causality-respecting faster-than-light travel is... confused. I think you\\\'ll find that there are lots and lots of people, with a tenuous-at-best grasp on physics, who will none-the-less start trying to convince you of all kinds of things, based on something they saw on the Discovery channel... or the Sci-Fi channel... or their friend told them... or they read on this one web-forum about \\\'\\\'cats\\\'\\\'...
My history is pretty week, but this is what I remember being taught: in the late 19th century, people still believed that there was a medium called \\\"ether\\\", and that light waves where propagating through this medium. In effect, they thought this medium might define a privileged, universal reference frame. They tried measuring the speed of light when they where at rest, and then when they where moving (with respect to the light source), thinking the person moving around would measure a slightly different velocity (because he was moving relative to the stationary ether): basically, they where thinking that the light-waves would propagate through the ether at a certain velocity \\\'\\\'with respect to the ether\\\'s fixed frame of reference\\\'\\\' (like mechanical wave propagate through matter), and that a person moving around with respect to the ether would see the difference in his velocity and the ether\\\'s velocity represented as a change in the speed that he would measure for the light wave. It didn\\\'t work: the same velocity was recorded (i.e. the person moving around saw the light-wave moving at 300,000 km/s in \\\'\\\'his frame\\\'\\\', even as the person at rest measured the light wave moving at 300,000 km/s in \\\'\\\'his\\\'\\\' frame too). HeadASplode. It took years and years of head-scratching for someone (no points for guessing who) to figure out that the problem was the assumption that there was a fundamental rest frame.
@girlyboy I\\\'m pretty sure that you where right the first time, and whoever\\\'s trying to convince you that General Relativity has some kind of mechanic for causality-respecting faster-than-light travel is... confused. I think you\\\'ll find that there are lots and lots of people, with a tenuous-at-best grasp on physics, who will none-the-less start trying to convince you of all kinds of things, based on something they saw on the Discovery channel... or the Sci-Fi channel... or their friend told them... or they read on this one web-forum about \\\'\\\'cats\\\'\\\'...
