Physics is Wrong

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]borrek wrote:
My math teacher told me that pi equals the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter.

To which I answered that the true physical measurements of a circle are impossible to ever finitely know, not to mention that the actual value of pi is not fully known, nor is it possible to ever know it in its entirety. This doesn’t even account for the relativistic disparities wherein under the effect of a strong gravitational presence, spacetime warps to the extent that a circle’s diameter could in actuality be infinitely greater than its circumference.

…I failed the class.

I get what the OP is saying, but it is a bit silly to say that we should stop saying pi=C/D (or really making any absolute statement) simply because it is only 99.99999999% true in 99.99999999999% of cases.

Personally, I think this will likely pan out as a measurement error, but if it doesn’t then science is going to get really fucking exciting for a while. The real gold of this discovery is not that it demonstrates a fallibility of physics, but it instead throws into question causality. Read about the tachyon anti-telephone for an idea of why that is problematic for physicists Tachyonic antitelephone - Wikipedia Causality is where physics and philosophy start to comingle.[/quote]

I asked a physics professor what the speed of gravity was. She seemed to have a mini-stroke

142

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:
My math teacher told me that pi equals the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter.

To which I answered that the true physical measurements of a circle are impossible to ever finitely know, not to mention that the actual value of pi is not fully known, nor is it possible to ever know it in its entirety. This doesn’t even account for the relativistic disparities wherein under the effect of a strong gravitational presence, spacetime warps to the extent that a circle’s diameter could in actuality be infinitely greater than its circumference.

…I failed the class.

I get what the OP is saying, but it is a bit silly to say that we should stop saying pi=C/D (or really making any absolute statement) simply because it is only 99.99999999% true in 99.99999999999% of cases.

Personally, I think this will likely pan out as a measurement error, but if it doesn’t then science is going to get really fucking exciting for a while. The real gold of this discovery is not that it demonstrates a fallibility of physics, but it instead throws into question causality. Read about the tachyon anti-telephone for an idea of why that is problematic for physicists Tachyonic antitelephone - Wikipedia Causality is where physics and philosophy start to comingle.[/quote]

I asked a physics professor what the speed of gravity was. She seemed to have a mini-stroke[/quote]

Probably because you asked the wrong question. Speed refers to Velocity, but Gravity refers to Acceleration.

143

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

No. It disagrees that Genesis 1 and 2 are a historical account. I personally think that looking at it as a historical account misses the more important points made by Genesis 1 and 2. And it’s doesn’t matter if GR is not completely correct or not, that’s not going to change the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old anyway.

Of course you do have biblical literalists who say they believe every word of the Bible literally. But they do not and I could prove it to them if I could have an honest discussion with one. So far it’s a no go. Now, I do think there is on person here I could have the discussion here with, but never got around to having it.

Anyhow, I will say this and mean it. If you think that a scientific fact proven true would invalidate your faith in God, you never really had any to begin with.[/quote]

I’m confused (not really :slight_smile: ).

I thought the Bible was the inerrant, inspired word of God Almighty. Amiwrong?

If the Bible is indeed inerrant, and inspired, why isn’t the world a few thousand years old?

If the Bible is not inerrant, and perhaps “uninspired”, who decides which parts of the Bible, if any, came from “God” and what came from man? How does one decide which to take as literal, and what not to?

In before BC says “because the Church says so”.

You may think I’m being facetious but I’d like to know how you (or anyone else) reconcile the logic here. Either the Bible is the inerrant inspired word of God, or it isn’t. Which is it?
[/quote]

Exactly, I’ll be waiting for their answers…

144

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:
My math teacher told me that pi equals the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter.

To which I answered that the true physical measurements of a circle are impossible to ever finitely know, not to mention that the actual value of pi is not fully known, nor is it possible to ever know it in its entirety. This doesn’t even account for the relativistic disparities wherein under the effect of a strong gravitational presence, spacetime warps to the extent that a circle’s diameter could in actuality be infinitely greater than its circumference.

…I failed the class.

I get what the OP is saying, but it is a bit silly to say that we should stop saying pi=C/D (or really making any absolute statement) simply because it is only 99.99999999% true in 99.99999999999% of cases.

Personally, I think this will likely pan out as a measurement error, but if it doesn’t then science is going to get really fucking exciting for a while. The real gold of this discovery is not that it demonstrates a fallibility of physics, but it instead throws into question causality. Read about the tachyon anti-telephone for an idea of why that is problematic for physicists Tachyonic antitelephone - Wikipedia Causality is where physics and philosophy start to comingle.[/quote]

I asked a physics professor what the speed of gravity was. She seemed to have a mini-stroke[/quote]

Probably because you asked the wrong question. Speed refers to Velocity, but Gravity refers to Acceleration.
[/quote]

Derp.

The question I asked was something along the lines of “If the earth was suddenly removed, how long would it take for the effects to be felt by the moon?”. If it’s instantaneous, then it’s faster than light.

145

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sooo… has anyone watched the CERN webcast I posted?[/quote]

couple minutes…boring, they weren’t talking about anything at the time.

146

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sooo… has anyone watched the CERN webcast I posted?[/quote]

couple minutes…boring, they weren’t talking about anything at the time.[/quote]

Yeah, it takes a full hour of explaning the history and set-up before he get’s to the good part, but you can skip all that. The Q&A is interesting aswell; they’re an odd bunch those scientists.

147

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

No. It disagrees that Genesis 1 and 2 are a historical account. I personally think that looking at it as a historical account misses the more important points made by Genesis 1 and 2. And it’s doesn’t matter if GR is not completely correct or not, that’s not going to change the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old anyway.

Of course you do have biblical literalists who say they believe every word of the Bible literally. But they do not and I could prove it to them if I could have an honest discussion with one. So far it’s a no go. Now, I do think there is on person here I could have the discussion here with, but never got around to having it.

Anyhow, I will say this and mean it. If you think that a scientific fact proven true would invalidate your faith in God, you never really had any to begin with.[/quote]

I’m confused (not really :slight_smile: ).
[/quote]
Yes you are, frequently.

No you don’t, so yes you are.

Why would it need to be? Doesn’t really specify when it happened, did it?

The bible is inerrant, divinely inspired and spiritual. If you are using it for a purpose it’s not intended for then it will not provide the info you need. That be like accusing a cook book as being errant because it doesn’t tell you how to replace the CV joint on a 1979 Chrysler Imperial. That’s not what the book is for. It’s a historical book, but it’t not a history book.
The bible contains many books and many stories for many different purposes some are literal, some are prophetic, some are allegorical, some are historical, some are parables.

BC does not do that unless he’s talking about what the church says. But it’s not unusual for to to falsely accuse people of things they do not do.

Facetious is not what I think your being. It’s not hard to reconcile the logic, it really isn’t. If you believe in God the bible is important, if you don’t it’s not.
As for the rest, the Bible can speak for itself. If you don’t read it, misuse it or don’t understand it, that’s not the Bible’s fault.

148

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:
Read about the tachyon anti-telephone for an idea of why that is problematic for physicists Tachyonic antitelephone - Wikipedia Causality is where physics and philosophy start to comingle.[/quote]

Oh no…here we go again…

Seriously, though, that is actually really cool. Thanks for the link, I’ll be researching this a bit now. [/quote]

Yeah, it’s a pretty cool link. Unless your a physicist the concept is what you need. I have to have faith in the people who do the math that the results support the concept. But like it says it’s a problem for physists not philosophers. All that matters is that causes necessitate their effects, not what direction it happens in.

149

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Well first it’s not a history book. That’s a common misconception. That doesn’t mean there are not historical facts in it, but they are used to support the religious aspect of it not the other way around. So it’s not necessary that the historical events necessarily be balls, spot on to support what is trying to be communicated. Considering that many times they are recorded from oral tradition and stuff, chances are that things may be a hair off. Now that’s not to say that every fact in the Bible is off. Just because some are doesn’t mean they all are. You have to consider the time it was written, the context and the audience it was intended for and it makes a lot more sense. Further the Bible isn’t ‘a book’ its a collection of books all unique. And where you get the ‘Greek Bible’ is not historically factual I have no idea. Which one?

[/quote]

So following the above, I’d say there is room in your reasoning to conclude that Jesus was not divine and that the Gospels are accounts used to support religious tenets? Would you agree that your reasoning allows for that possibility? Do you agree you are on a slippery slope here?[/quote]

No.

150

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:
My math teacher told me that pi equals the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter.

To which I answered that the true physical measurements of a circle are impossible to ever finitely know, not to mention that the actual value of pi is not fully known, nor is it possible to ever know it in its entirety. This doesn’t even account for the relativistic disparities wherein under the effect of a strong gravitational presence, spacetime warps to the extent that a circle’s diameter could in actuality be infinitely greater than its circumference.

…I failed the class.

I get what the OP is saying, but it is a bit silly to say that we should stop saying pi=C/D (or really making any absolute statement) simply because it is only 99.99999999% true in 99.99999999999% of cases.

Personally, I think this will likely pan out as a measurement error, but if it doesn’t then science is going to get really fucking exciting for a while. The real gold of this discovery is not that it demonstrates a fallibility of physics, but it instead throws into question causality. Read about the tachyon anti-telephone for an idea of why that is problematic for physicists Tachyonic antitelephone - Wikipedia Causality is where physics and philosophy start to comingle.[/quote]

I asked a physics professor what the speed of gravity was. She seemed to have a mini-stroke[/quote]

In general or on Earth?

151

Here is one of my favorite videos that seems related to the direction of this thread: Richard Feynman: Magnets and Why Questions - YouTube

152

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:
My math teacher told me that pi equals the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter.

To which I answered that the true physical measurements of a circle are impossible to ever finitely know, not to mention that the actual value of pi is not fully known, nor is it possible to ever know it in its entirety. This doesn’t even account for the relativistic disparities wherein under the effect of a strong gravitational presence, spacetime warps to the extent that a circle’s diameter could in actuality be infinitely greater than its circumference.

…I failed the class.

I get what the OP is saying, but it is a bit silly to say that we should stop saying pi=C/D (or really making any absolute statement) simply because it is only 99.99999999% true in 99.99999999999% of cases.

Personally, I think this will likely pan out as a measurement error, but if it doesn’t then science is going to get really fucking exciting for a while. The real gold of this discovery is not that it demonstrates a fallibility of physics, but it instead throws into question causality. Read about the tachyon anti-telephone for an idea of why that is problematic for physicists Tachyonic antitelephone - Wikipedia Causality is where physics and philosophy start to comingle.[/quote]

I asked a physics professor what the speed of gravity was. She seemed to have a mini-stroke[/quote]

In general or on Earth?[/quote]

See my reply above

153

Feynman is certainly better suited to answer these questions than the posters here.

154

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Many are detazathoth, many threads are.

[/quote]

Like this hurts my head, the fact that neutrinos may have the possibility to overturn Einstein, it’s not really a big deal. Even if this proves to valid, it doesn’t equate to Physics being “wrong” by any sense of the word, if anything this has the possibility of being exciting if proven true. I’m not going into hardcore physics as a career but I am in the same very clusterfuck that hardcore future physicists are in as well. And I can tell you the current students all love it. Because what CERN and their LHC is doing now is crushing many fundamental things we took for granted and forcing us to go back to the drawing board. This gives people of our generation (those who are still studying or haven’t yet been in post-secondary education) an overwhelmingly new and open world to build and carve our own names into history. Everyone want’s to take a bite out of newton’s or einstein’s fame and proving them wrong may cause chaos for the engineers but good news to young and fresh physicists.

Although, realistically, it’s doubtful that these neutrinos are FTL, otherwise how we record supernovas would be off, and they haven’t been, so there’s a healthy skepticism to be had.

155

[quote]detazathoth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Many are detazathoth, many threads are.

[/quote]

Like this hurts my head, the fact that neutrinos may have the possibility to overturn Einstein, it’s not really a big deal. Even if this proves to valid, it doesn’t equate to Physics being “wrong” by any sense of the word, if anything this has the possibility of being exciting if proven true. I’m not going into hardcore physics as a career but I am in the same very clusterfuck that hardcore future physicists are in as well. And I can tell you the current students all love it. Because what CERN and their LHC is doing now is crushing many fundamental things we took for granted and forcing us to go back to the drawing board. This gives people of our generation (those who are still studying or haven’t yet been in post-secondary education) an overwhelmingly new and open world to build and carve our own names into history. Everyone want’s to take a bite out of newton’s or einstein’s fame and proving them wrong may cause chaos for the engineers but good news to young and fresh physicists.

Although, realistically, it’s doubtful that these neutrinos are FTL, otherwise how we record supernovas would be off, and they haven’t been, so there’s a healthy skepticism to be had.

[/quote]

Those guys from CERN spent years replicating the experiments, trying to find fault with everything they’ve done and still the results were the same.

Until other scientists can replicate the experiment and post their results everything stays at it was. This is why CERN refused to speculate on the nature of their findings.

And what PWI is concerned; keep your expectations low and pick the bits of information from the mud because they are there. Just use a good bullshit filter (:

156

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

No. It disagrees that Genesis 1 and 2 are a historical account. I personally think that looking at it as a historical account misses the more important points made by Genesis 1 and 2. And it’s doesn’t matter if GR is not completely correct or not, that’s not going to change the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old anyway.

Of course you do have biblical literalists who say they believe every word of the Bible literally. But they do not and I could prove it to them if I could have an honest discussion with one. So far it’s a no go. Now, I do think there is on person here I could have the discussion here with, but never got around to having it.

Anyhow, I will say this and mean it. If you think that a scientific fact proven true would invalidate your faith in God, you never really had any to begin with.[/quote]

I’m confused (not really :slight_smile: ).
[/quote]
Yes you are, frequently.

No you don’t, so yes you are.

Why would it need to be? Doesn’t really specify when it happened, did it?

The bible is inerrant, divinely inspired and spiritual. If you are using it for a purpose it’s not intended for then it will not provide the info you need. That be like accusing a cook book as being errant because it doesn’t tell you how to replace the CV joint on a 1979 Chrysler Imperial. That’s not what the book is for. It’s a historical book, but it’t not a history book.
The bible contains many books and many stories for many different purposes some are literal, some are prophetic, some are allegorical, some are historical, some are parables.

BC does not do that unless he’s talking about what the church says. But it’s not unusual for to to falsely accuse people of things they do not do.

Facetious is not what I think your being. It’s not hard to reconcile the logic, it really isn’t. If you believe in God the bible is important, if you don’t it’s not.
As for the rest, the Bible can speak for itself. If you don’t read it, misuse it or don’t understand it, that’s not the Bible’s fault.[/quote]

Ah, the old PWI shuffle. LOL. Pick and reply.

Problem with your analogy is that I know of no cookbook that makes any reference to a CV joint. Fail sir. Nice try.

157

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Considering that many times they are recorded from oral tradition and stuff

things may be a hair off.

Just because some are

You have to consider the time it was written, the context and the audience it was intended for

Further the Bible isn’t ‘a book’ its a collection of books all unique.

[/quote]

So following the above, I’d say there is room in your reasoning to conclude that Jesus was not divine and that the Gospels are accounts used to support religious tenets? Would you agree that your reasoning allows for that possibility? Do you agree you are on a slippery slope here?[/quote]

No.[/quote]

Well I’m glad you cleared that up :slight_smile:

158

[quote]borrek wrote:
Here is one of my favorite videos that seems related to the direction of this thread: Richard Feynman: Magnets and Why Questions - YouTube

on point.

nice find.

159

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< Of course you do have biblical literalists who say they believe every word of the Bible literally. >>>[/quote]I am as conservative a plenary verbal, fundamentalist whacko as anyone will ever meet and I do not believe that every word of the bible is literal. Not every word is intended to be literal.
[/quote]

Yes, but scripture itself has a literal meaning.

160

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And finally Brother Chris will eventually show up[/quote]

Knew you had a crush on me.