it's tech

[Walsingham]

taks, mate, you're not listening. We're saying that you CAN use theories as axiomatic assumptions because otherwise you'd waste a lot time being an engineer. However, they are still just theories. In the middle ages they used to build very successful cathedrals using an awareness of centres of gravity, rather than stress modelling. Effective, but not systemically true.

 

Krezack, stop me if I'm putting words in your mouth.

[Wrath of Dagon]

What? I never heard of anything travelling above the speed of light. Theoretically it's possible, but such an object could never go below the speed of light. According to Lorenz equations, it takes infinite energy to accelerate a finite rest mass to the speed of light, or by symmetry to decelerate. Now some day some one may prove that wrong, but so far as I know that hasn't happened yet.

The university built this big setup which they are expanding so they can test it's practicality on larger and larger distances. Experiments with faster than light communication and teleportation across the Danube: http://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/publications3/...les/2006-10.pdf

 

They hope to be able to get their own satellite in space one day for testing their communication technology

Well, this is all way above my head, but it seems it's generally believed that no useful information can be transmitted through entanglement alone, thus it still obeys relativistic principles.

[taks]

taks, mate, you're not listening. We're saying that you CAN use theories as axiomatic assumptions because otherwise you'd waste a lot time being an engineer. However, they are still just theories.

walsh, YOU are not listening. the simple point is that the "law of gravity" is indeed an empirical physical law, regardless of what happens at atomic (or massive) scales. do a little research for god's sake. a simple google search would suffice. pick up a physics text. the law is a simple formula F = m1*m2*G/r^2. krezack's comments are utter bull****.

 

geebus, haven't you guys had a single physics class?

 

taks

Edited December 29, 2008 by taks

[taks]

but it seems it's generally believed that no useful information can be transmitted through entanglement alone, thus it still obeys relativistic principles.

yes, that is the claim.

 

taks

[taks]

Laws of Science.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

You're being deliberately obtuse, taks. I'm not trying too put forward a very complex argument, and it holds true regardless of any proof. A theory, or law, or whatever you want to call it, only survives while there is insufficient evidence to disprove it. You're talking about universal laws that are immutable. But who is to say that what you call a law is dependent upon observations which are depending on very local phenomena in time and space? there could be an invisible giant space gnat sitting behind Mars which makes gravity behave differently.

[taks]

You're being deliberately obtuse, taks.

no, i'm not, i'm talking basic science here, walsh. i asked you to go out and do a little research, all of which would easily prove my point, and all you can do is call me obtuse. i must say, if anyone is being deliberately obtuse...

 

I'm not trying too put forward a very complex argument, and it holds true regardless of any proof. A theory, or law, or whatever you want to call it, only survives while there is insufficient evidence to disprove it.

again, do a little research, walsh. gravity is a law, not a theory, and the equation that approximates its effect is what i posted earlier. are you really trying to say that the fact you and i are stuck on this planet is a theory? nonsense.

 

You're talking about universal laws that are immutable.

actually, they are assumed immutable. again, look at the list i provided. 18 of those laws are thought to exist. they are fundamental to all science.

 

you and krezack seem to be operating under the assumption that once einstein's theories came along suddenly "the universal law of gravitation" got demoted. that's absolutely ridiculous and that's not how it works. there's no hierarchy. theories don't "get better" then become laws nor does the reverse happen*. laws are very fundamental concepts that are universally assumed true, and almost always can be directly tested, e.g., the effect of gravity between two objects.

 

i expect this nonsense from krezack, but not you.

 

taks

 

* the point being that it's not like a military rank, i.e., "theory" does not necessarily mean "less than law," but rather, it usually means more complex than law. i generally DO use the ranking of "theory = tested hypothesis," however, but only for simplification since the terms tend to get mangled.

Edited December 29, 2008 by taks

[Walsingham]

OK, I'm confused about two things:

 

1. Why you think Krezack is less sensible than I am.

2. How you can accept that a theory is anything more than a more complex 'law', but refuse to acknowledge that a law is anything other than a temporarily upheld theory.

 

Regarding two, if you and I were earwigs in a cup at the end of a piece of string being twirled around we might be able to posit theories of motion for objects. They might hold true for generation after generation. But the moment the beiing twirling the string stopped twirling, the rules change. Yes?

 

My point is that I can go away and get as much educationas is humanly possible, but the total sum of it will not make the whole anything more than dependent on what we have observed.

[Humodour]

Well said, Walsingham.

 

taks's adamant opposition to fairly obvious and simple facts puzzles me, as does his persistent desire to belittle those who don't take his word as gospel.

[Walsingham]

Well said, Walsingham.

 

taks's adamant opposition to fairly obvious and simple facts puzzles me, as does his persistent desire to belittle those who don't take his word as gospel.

 

Hold on, mate. Give the man a chance to grasp our argument. The fault could lie in our explanation.

[Rosbjerg]

I blame the giant space gnat behind Mars.