st.patrick on 23/2/2006 at 11:54
Back to the question posted itt:
The answer is
YES
maybe
Ishtvan on 23/2/2006 at 20:51
I'd have to agree with demagogue and others that the particular article is bogus, twin paradox is not a paradox, etc.
There are still some places where the predictions of relativity are inconsistent though. If you do a search for "causality violation" in "respectable" scientific journals, you'll find tons of articles. As a personal example, I heard a talk from someone studying causality violations in the behavior of charged particles reacting to a field, based on theory only (not some crazy experimental effect). The gist of it was: in order to satisfy other postulates of relativity, the charged particles would have to start accelerating in response to the field before the field was applied, violating causality.
jstnomega on 23/2/2006 at 22:12
Quote Posted by Para?noid
Godel, Incompletness. What are you gonna do eh
Set it aside. (That was a bad pun.)
ignatios on 23/2/2006 at 22:18
So bad that I don't even get it :confused:
Unless you're talking about the word "set" in which case it really is a bad pun, and I don't mean bad in a good way.
A better one would be something like "at least Gödel makes your tits seem bigger"
Mingan on 24/2/2006 at 03:27
Is relativity wrong? No. Why? Because a theory is not WRONG (unless we're talking about planet X or other loonies), it's INACCURATE. Hell, even Newton's Laws of Motion aren't wrong, they just don't consider some factors so that the theory fails to explain this or that phenomenon. That's why it's still taught in schools. Same for relativity; it explains and PREDICTS(this is necessary for any GOOD theory) many phenomenons, but today, we found instances where it can't explain the why of some event. All it means is that it is incomplete (though one can wonder who ever thought that relativity would've explained it all at once). Thus more advanced research on string theory, and such.
One thing can be tried to see if a new theory is getting anywhere: can you derive from the new theory the previous ones? Because, using relativity under certain conditions gets you Newton's LoM. Many new theories do that too, so we know for sure we're getting somewhere, although some of them will be dropped or integrated into the more workable theory.
As for the article, I didn't read it; since the last 'time travel ain't possible' thing, I prefer to stay away from controversial articles that claim having figured it all and put it on the intarwebbe instead of a serious paper. (To tell you the truth, the time travel guy got his bearings all wrong at the start, and we was coming off as an angsty-teen-that-got-it-all-and-everyone-else-is-a-wanker).
Deep Qantas on 24/2/2006 at 16:17
Quote Posted by descenterace
(
http://www.relativitychallenge.com/cicsModel.htm) Uhhhh...
OK, I think this guy is taking the piss. The differences in this 'thought experiment' are caused by
air resistance, not flaws in relativity. If the experiment was done in a vaccuum (with appropriate spacesuits for the participants), I wonder what his results would be?
No, dude! Haven't you ever heard of the Ether?!
:p
Hesche on 24/2/2006 at 17:03
10 phlogistons make one Ether.
