Why does everyone assume the speed of light is the fastest we can go?

[semaphore]

Is not the act of doubting our own knowledge what leads to more knowledge?

No. It's the act of searching for answers in a logical, rational and systematic manner that leads to more knowledge.

You're slapping down my light-hearted movie quote for being technically incorrect while completely missing the whole point of why I used it at all... people are so tense in this thread.

Historical reality is not a technicality - it is factually wrong in every way. Which was all I said, you're the one apparently getting all worked up just because I pointed out you quoted something factually incorrect.

[Woebegone]

Like I said... people are so tense in this thread.

When you deal with people like this often enough, you start getting kinda tense: http://xkcd.com/675/

(comic totally relevant to this thread)

[semaphore]

(comic totally relevant to this thread)

xkcd is always relevant!

[Herecius]

No. It's the act of searching for answers in a logical, rational and systematic manner that leads to more knowledge.

If you're going to search for answers, you have to ask the right questions, so the question isn't 'Is the speed of light the fastest we can go,' because that's a boring question with a boring answer, the question is 'Why is it the fastest we can go?'

Once you know why it's the fastest we can go (and plenty of folks have gone over that right here in this thread, energy limitations and all that good stuff), then you can ask 'How might we get around that speed limit?' That's a much more interesting question, because even the wrong answers are pretty good answers.

[Ellesarr]

Because the speed of light is relative.

this means that light will always go the same speed no matter from which perspective.

lets say you stand still, light will pass you with 299 792 458 m / s but lets say 300 000 000 m / s

now lets say for some reason you are able to travel at a speed of 290 000 000 m / s

it would be logical to assume that the light will now pass you at a speed of only 10 000 000 m / s but this is wrong, even at such a high speed the light will still pass you at a set 300 000 000 m /s.




assuming you understood the above you will see that it is physicly impossible to travel at a speed that is faster then the speed of light because even if you would be able to travel at 300 000 000 m / s the light would still speed past you at 300 000 000 m / s as always, I THINK... actually i dont know maybe the universe just explodes or something.

this is also the reason why time slows down the faster you move.

[adendum]

Just cause we havent discovered how to or understand the science behind it doesnt mean that the speed of light is the fastest and ONLY way we can go.

Prove it and win some nobelz.

[semaphore]

That's a much more interesting question, because even the wrong answers are pretty good answers.

What's good about wrong answers? Especially the ones that are based on ignorance of the physics involved (like pretty much all the ones in this thread), as opposed to a valid solution of the mathematics that turns out to be disproved by new evidence.

Case in point:

established by morons maybe. they say that because as you speed up you get heavier so you need more energy to go faster and this just keeps stacking up to a higher amount of needed energy, but the speeed of light is NOT an infinite number it is a set and absolute number meaning you need a set amount of eneergy to reach the speed and any more energy added would make you go faster. plus, in a vaccume you never slow down unless you hit something so you need a fraction of the energy you would need on earth.

[Herecius]

What's good about wrong answers? Especially the ones that are based on ignorance of the physics involved (like pretty much all the ones in this thread), as opposed to a valid solution of the mathematics that turns out to be disproved by new evidence.

The wrong answers are still oftentimes good answers because they can commonly lead to further discoveries in the surrounding field. Disproving a theory is every bit as important, if not MORE important, than proving it.

My god, did somebody suck all of the joy of discovery out of you with a straw or something? Like some manner of discovery vampire? The question of getting around the universal speed limit is one of the most interesting ones in astrophysics (and particle physics) of today.

EDIT: Also, we can happily ignore the super bullshitty answers, can't we? Nobody in this thread is capable of providing any kind of mathematical proof that the speed of light can be exceeded, so there's really no point even discussing it or bringing it up from that perspective. Concepts on the other hand, can often be understood by the layman without necessarily understanding the math that drives them.

[The Small Hours]

This may come as a surprise to some of you but they already invented a device that can take us faster than light speed, it's called a warp drive and the Starship Enterprise has been using it for decades now.

[Hraklea]

As I read someone pointing out the difference between religion and faith, I felt in obligation to adress that "trusting in the scientific method" and "blinding believing in everything that a person graduated in physics says" are different things.

People don't "believe the light is fast because someone said so", like some people are trying to imply.

[semaphore]

The wrong answers are still oftentimes good answers because they can commonly lead to further discoveries in the surrounding field.

There's a huge difference between a valid hypothesis that turned out to be wrong, like I said, and stupid crackpot ideas that are wrong from start to finish because their proponents refuse to understand the sciences they are bashing, like the above example.

My god, did somebody suck all of the joy of discovery out of you with a straw or something?

Don't be so sour just because someone happened to disagree with you. You've been bitching about this for like five posts now.

Concepts on the other hand, can often be understood by the layman without necessarily understanding the math that drives them.

The problem is when lay people think they can extend upon real science using ideas they conjured up while trying to understand those concepts.

[Laize]

I know. And this doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

When theyre referring to the Universe being flat, theyre ALSO referring to spacetime.

[semaphore]

When theyre referring to the Universe being flat, theyre ALSO referring to spacetime.

Who's "they" and where did they say this, and on what basis?

[Herecius]

Don't be so sour just because someone happened to disagree with you. You've been bitching about this for like five posts now.

You should read my posts a bit closer; I've been agreeing with you, no 'bitching', I swear. You're just being a big ball o' anger for some reason towards me.

The problem is when lay people think they can extend upon real science using ideas they conjured up while trying to understand those concepts.

Well of course that doesn't really get anybody anywhere. I really don't care about the, as you said, crackpot answers that are wrong in the most basic of ways due to a total misunderstanding of what exactly the speed of light is to begin with. That's why I find it more interesting to talk about the various solutions that genuine physicists have come up with regarding getting around the speed of light. I was honestly kinda hoping to strike up a discussion about that stuff, but I get the feeling that that's a lost cause.

[Laize]

Who's "they" and where did they say this, and on what basis?

What, exactly, do you think the difference between spacetime and the universe is?

[semaphore]

I've been agreeing with you, no 'bitching', I swear.

Except for all the times when you bitched and moaned. I tried to ignore the first ones, but at this point it seems like you're just trying to get a rise out of me by keep going at it, even when all I did was ask you a question.

My god, did somebody suck all of the joy of discovery out of you with a straw or something? Like some manner of discovery vampire?

Like I said... people are so tense in this thread.

loosen up, man. People are so tense in this thread.

Well excuuuuuuuse me, Sir Buzz Killington. :P I bet you shouted 'WRONG THAT'S WRONG' at the theater screen, too!

You're just being a big ball o' anger for some reason towards me.

I was honestly kinda hoping to strike up a discussion about that stuff, but I get the feeling that that's a lost cause.

Might have something to do with all your incessant need to whine about me personally, in every post, instead of actually honestly sticking to discussing the science. All I asked was why you think bad answers are good, and apparently that's such a "big ball o' anger" you just had to write a whole paragraph to take a swipe at me.

---------- Post added 2013-01-07 at 12:23 PM ----------

What, exactly, do you think the difference between spacetime and the universe is?

The universe is all that exists. Spacetime isn't.

And you didn't answer the question.

[Herecius]

Alright, alright, you got me, I was definitely being a giant raging douche canoe towards you.

[Deleted]

Watching less Startrek and paying more attention in school could make the difference between being 'perplex by such assumptions' or 'understanding such facts'.

Trying to give some ground to the OP's assumption like "Hey we thought the world was flat too and no men thought the we could fly" only confirms the complete ignorance on physics towards the specific subject.
As long as people remain in denial with such arguments it's not worth it to try to explain why the speed of light is the maximumspeed for everything with a mass > 0.

They will never comprehend.

[semaphore]

Alright, alright, you got me, I was definitely being a giant raging douche canoe towards you.

I never accused you of being angry; non-stop whining about how someone doesn't laugh at your brilliant insights is your game.

[Banzhe]

Quite the opposite. Science is the work of a collaboration of anyone and everyone who is curious enough to test his or her thoughts. Many scientist spend their entire careers on subjects that end up leading nowhere, but they're still regarded contributing, because they helped bring understanding about paths that do not work. People who try unusual perspectives are very much welcome, if the problems they imagine can't be easily disproven by the network of scientific facts that hundreds of thousands of curious men and women have helped build over the past 4000 years (I'm regarding the babylonians the first men of science).

What we learn in school is the progress of this collaboration of results of curiosity, which anyone and everyone is welcome to join. But you have to understand that some people, who has spent their entire careers on something that someone else then claims is entirety wrong, approach such claims with scepticism. That's only natural.

Oh, you mean like when global dimming (building of carbon in clouds essentially making them mirrors) was blindly dismissed until 3 years later, ye hats off to the scientific community and mass media.., sorry for not following the flock.....

People know what their told, it really is that simple.