Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Neutions travel faster than speed of light.

popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 9:59:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm sure everyone heard about that development earlier this year.

http://www.ibtimes.com...

Well, apparently, it has been confirmed.

http://www.science20.com...

Very interesting.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Jon1
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 2:44:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 9:59:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'm sure everyone heard about that development earlier this year.

http://www.ibtimes.com...

Well, apparently, it has been confirmed.

http://www.science20.com...

Very interesting.

What are the implications of this?
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 4:37:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 2:44:05 AM, Jon1 wrote:

What are the implications of this?

That what some call "impossible" merely means "not understandable with our current knowledge"
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 4:58:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It hasn't been confirmed confirmed. All they've done is rule out some possible sources of interference. The official release is: "This test confirms the accuracy of OPERA's timing measurement, ruling out one potential source of systematic error. The new measurements do not change the initial conclusion. Nevertheless, the observed anomaly in the neutrinos' time of flight from CERN to Gran Sasso still needs further scrutiny and independent measurement before it can be refuted or confirmed"
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 9:43:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 9:59:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'm sure everyone heard about that development earlier this year.

http://www.ibtimes.com...

Well, apparently, it has been confirmed.

http://www.science20.com...

Very interesting.

I sure didn't hear about that. It's really shaking up the scientific world.

Kind of confused me, though, because we confirmed the existence of neutrinos when they appeared here after being shot from a supernova that we witnessed in the 80's (though it happened billions of years ago). In other words, they got here around the same time the image of the supernova (and thus, the light emanating from it) reached us. So, I went looking for an answer, and it turns out that it's one of the major flaws in the proposition:

"There's a major hitch in the neutrino story: Neutrinos have been timed in the real world by astronomers. A supernova that was detected in 1987 sent streams of neutrinos to Earth, and they arrived at just about the same moment as the light of the exploding star. Had those neutrinos been travelling at OPERA speed, they would have arrived four years earlier. (There could be a way around this hitch: Maybe the high-energy neutrinos in the lab experiment go faster than the ones from the supernova.)
John Ellis, a theorist from the Geneva lab where the super-speed neutrinos originated, said by email, "Deep in my heart, I do not expect the faster-than-light interpretation of the OPERA data to survive, but one must keep an open mind.""

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com...

Thanks for sharing. I'm going to be watching this -- I have a feeling that no matter what, this is leading to something enormous.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 11:06:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 4:37:57 AM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 11/19/2011 2:44:05 AM, Jon1 wrote:

What are the implications of this?

That what some call "impossible" merely means "not understandable with our current knowledge"

This, and time travel...
President of DDO
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 11:13:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 4:58:39 AM, Kinesis wrote:
It hasn't been confirmed confirmed. All they've done is rule out some possible sources of interference. The official release is: "This test confirms the accuracy of OPERA's timing measurement, ruling out one potential source of systematic error. The new measurements do not change the initial conclusion. Nevertheless, the observed anomaly in the neutrinos' time of flight from CERN to Gran Sasso still needs further scrutiny and independent measurement before it can be refuted or confirmed"

This.

It won't be confirmed until their results are exhaustively peer reviewed, and even then, the scientific community won't accept the results until they are replicated multiple times in other places.

If the discovery is true, it means Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity is wrong (which would upend modern physics) or that time travel is possible.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Chthonian
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 2:22:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 11:13:57 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/19/2011 4:58:39 AM, Kinesis wrote:
It hasn't been confirmed confirmed. All they've done is rule out some possible sources of interference. The official release is: "This test confirms the accuracy of OPERA's timing measurement, ruling out one potential source of systematic error. The new measurements do not change the initial conclusion. Nevertheless, the observed anomaly in the neutrinos' time of flight from CERN to Gran Sasso still needs further scrutiny and independent measurement before it can be refuted or confirmed"

This.

It won't be confirmed until their results are exhaustively peer reviewed, and even then, the scientific community won't accept the results until they are replicated multiple times in other places.

If the discovery is true, it means Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity is wrong (which would upend modern physics) or that time travel is possible.

I don't know what the general consensus is in the scientific community, but physicist Brian Greene stated that if the findings are independently verified then... "E equals MC squared will still be with us. All of the wonderful features of relativity will still be with us. We'll just have a more refined version of relativity to accommodate these results if they are true." http://www.npr.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 3:38:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 4:58:39 AM, Kinesis wrote:
It hasn't been confirmed confirmed. All they've done is rule out some possible sources of interference. The official release is: "This test confirms the accuracy of OPERA's timing measurement, ruling out one potential source of systematic error. The new measurements do not change the initial conclusion. Nevertheless, the observed anomaly in the neutrinos' time of flight from CERN to Gran Sasso still needs further scrutiny and independent measurement before it can be refuted or confirmed"

Hey! Stop ruining my party. I want time travel! Geez...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 6:34:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 2:22:21 PM, Chthonian wrote:
At 11/20/2011 11:13:57 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/19/2011 4:58:39 AM, Kinesis wrote:
It hasn't been confirmed confirmed. All they've done is rule out some possible sources of interference. The official release is: "This test confirms the accuracy of OPERA's timing measurement, ruling out one potential source of systematic error. The new measurements do not change the initial conclusion. Nevertheless, the observed anomaly in the neutrinos' time of flight from CERN to Gran Sasso still needs further scrutiny and independent measurement before it can be refuted or confirmed"

This.

It won't be confirmed until their results are exhaustively peer reviewed, and even then, the scientific community won't accept the results until they are replicated multiple times in other places.

If the discovery is true, it means Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity is wrong (which would upend modern physics) or that time travel is possible.

I don't know what the general consensus is in the scientific community, but physicist Brian Greene stated that if the findings are independently verified then... "E equals MC squared will still be with us. All of the wonderful features of relativity will still be with us. We'll just have a more refined version of relativity to accommodate these results if they are true." http://www.npr.org...

This.

The scientific community is in an upheaval, but they're not having identity crises or anything...
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 1:24:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
First, what are Neutions?

Anyways, let's see it get verified & duplicated. I really don't think that this is going to end up dethroning Relativity. http://www.sciencedaily.com...

As far as time travel goes, time isn't something you "travel" anyways. However, I guess one could say that we travel into the future constantly at 1 sec/sec, and depending on your speed relative to c, time may slow down for you or even stop! But it will NEVER go backwards. "Backwards time travel" is in and of itself a paradox.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Defensor-of-Apollo
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 9:52:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/21/2011 1:24:45 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
"Backwards time travel" is in and of itself a paradox.

You are assuming time traveling to be only into the future to make that claim which is a logical fallacy.

1. You show time traveling into the future.
2. Therefore backwards time travel is impossible.

Your logic doesn't flow regardless if the previous text, referring to forward time travel, was a pretext in explanation for the statement quoted. I think you will either have to elaborate or redefine your position.

I think a much more reasonable ground for stating the impossibility of backwards time travel is on the basis of causality. Cause always equals effect, not the reverse.

However, even then I don't think that is suiting because that is an observation from forward time travel, backwards time travel does not necessarily have to follow.

A logical basis for discounting certain methods of reverse time travel is by lack of evidence of effects caused by a cause in the future. Which is to say people are not coming into our present from our future.

However, this does not exclude the possibility of only being able to travel back to a certain captured frame. There was this intriguing video on it however recent attempts to find it have be futile.

Even with the captured frame several problems exist that result in chaos or paradoxes.

The only method of time travel that I see promising is forward time travel by way of shortening your reference frame in comparison of others.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 7:27:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2011 9:59:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'm sure everyone heard about that development earlier this year.

http://www.ibtimes.com...

Well, apparently, it has been confirmed.

http://www.science20.com...

Very interesting.

No its not. not offend dude but you have the WORST SOURCES OF INFORMATION I HAVE EVER SEEN.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 11:26:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I actually had a final exam problem on this study in one of my classes last semester. My calculations indicated that if the neutrinos had actually been traveling at their indicated speed, they would have reached the detector some insane amount of time earlier than they did (not sure exactly what the time was).
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 11:26:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 7:27:25 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 11/18/2011 9:59:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'm sure everyone heard about that development earlier this year.

http://www.ibtimes.com...

Well, apparently, it has been confirmed.

http://www.science20.com...

Very interesting.

No its not. not offend dude but you have the WORST SOURCES OF INFORMATION I HAVE EVER SEEN.

Do you have any sources indicating otherwise, or did you just think that it would be fun to hijack the thread?
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 2:56:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2011 9:59:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'm sure everyone heard about that development earlier this year.

http://www.ibtimes.com...

Well, apparently, it has been confirmed.

http://www.science20.com...

Very interesting.

ahhh I'll wait for more confirmation before buying into this.
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 3:01:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/19/2011 2:44:05 AM, Jon1 wrote:
At 11/18/2011 9:59:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'm sure everyone heard about that development earlier this year.

http://www.ibtimes.com...

Well, apparently, it has been confirmed.

http://www.science20.com...

Very interesting.

What are the implications of this?

From what I understand it would mess up our current understanding of cause and effect.
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 3:08:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
neutrinos from supernovas have been measured and don't exceed the speed of light... this is why I'll remain skeptical until I see more confirmation.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 3:48:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 11:26:37 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/10/2012 7:27:25 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 11/18/2011 9:59:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'm sure everyone heard about that development earlier this year.

http://www.ibtimes.com...

Well, apparently, it has been confirmed.

http://www.science20.com...

Very interesting.

No its not. not offend dude but you have the WORST SOURCES OF INFORMATION I HAVE EVER SEEN.

Do you have any sources indicating otherwise, or did you just think that it would be fun to hijack the thread?

Royal Sophist: THe world is full of opinions and claims. But the justification is what makes it worth anything.

The Fool: Secondly if something is making claims in which all past experiements have shown otherwise, then the source should be of solid. YOU SHOULD HAVE THE PRIMARY SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL. because if that was true if would be way more popular then that.

The Fool: pop-sophist's references tend to be very weak and uncredible sources. I think and I hope he has sincere intention but he just sounds like he hasn't had a course on research methods. You want sources to be highly credible sites that have thier integrety to lose, if they had anything false.

The Fool: Religious sources are as credible as any faith based belief. Not only that but they extremly bias in only attanting information that promotes belief and conversion. So it is out of conflict of interest which make them unreliable. It sucks but its the truth. (Including Theology. that is any mix of religion/philospohy)

The Fool:Lastly I do have the secret of time. Big claim. But I back up everything I ever say. But I dont know how comfortable I am with giving it away so easily.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:20:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/21/2011 9:52:56 PM, Defensor-of-Apollo wrote:
You are assuming time traveling to be only into the future to make that claim which is a logical fallacy.

1. You show time traveling into the future.
2. Therefore backwards time travel is impossible.
The above is NOT my position. You have misunderstood.

Your logic doesn't flow regardless if the previous text, referring to forward time travel, was a pretext in explanation for the statement quoted. I think you will either have to elaborate or redefine your position.
Again, I think that I need to explain my position. It all hinges on my definition of time: time = change. In other words, the progression of time IS change. If there is ANY change in a physical system, then time is elapsing. This definition also reflects many of the observed phenomenon pertaining to General Relativity. For example:
(1) As the amount of change increases so does time (i.e. time speeding up)
(2) As the amount of change decreases so does time (i.e. time slowing down)
(3) As the amount of change stops so does time (i.e. time stops).

These are all the effects of Time Dilation as viewed from the different frames of reference when someone traveling close to c. For example:
(1) When traveling close to c, others that are "stationary" appear as time is faster.
(2) When "stationary", others that are traveling close to c appear as time is slower.
(3) When traveling at c, it appears as if time has stopped for you.

As you can see, this definition coincides VERY well with existing theory and experimentation. It also has the added caveat of making "backwards time travel" a contradiction! Why? As you can see above there are only 3 possibilities: more change, less change, or no change, BUT you CANNOT have negative change as that is a contradiction.

I hope that clarifies my position.

I think a much more reasonable ground for stating the impossibility of backwards time travel is on the basis of causality. Cause always equals effect, not the reverse.
But there is no physical law for cause and effect. Also, cause-effect leads to an infinite regression which means that an infinite amount of time must have passed in order to arrive at this point in time today BUT the fact that time is still elapsing shows us that an infinite amount of time has NOT elapsed. Ergo, time has a beginning: at the uncaused initial state.

However, even then I don't think that is suiting because that is an observation from forward time travel, backwards time travel does not necessarily have to follow.
Not sure what you mean here.

A logical basis for discounting certain methods of reverse time travel is by lack of evidence of effects caused by a cause in the future. Which is to say people are not coming into our present from our future.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

However, this does not exclude the possibility of only being able to travel back to a certain captured frame. There was this intriguing video on it however recent attempts to find it have be futile.
Personally, I don't think so.

Even with the captured frame several problems exist that result in chaos or paradoxes.
I guess so. There is another way to "time travel" in any direction, if you're willing to accept a whole lot of speculation and wishful thinking...the MWI! That is, the Many Worlds Interpretation. There are no paradoxes or reverse causality here! The only problem is that you're NOT really time traveling! Your actually UNIVERSE traveling!

The only method of time travel that I see promising is forward time travel by way of shortening your reference frame in comparison of others.
Which is exactly my point: time dilation. And it is also why I like my definition of time.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:24:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 3:48:16 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool:Lastly I do have the secret of time. Big claim. But I back up everything I ever say. But I dont know how comfortable I am with giving it away so easily.

Don't worry about it, I already did!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:45:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:24:00 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 2/11/2012 3:48:16 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool:Lastly I do have the secret of time. Big claim. But I back up everything I ever say. But I dont know how comfortable I am with giving it away so easily.

Don't worry about it, I already did!

The Fool: Good job. Respect!!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 11:46:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:45:09 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:24:00 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 2/11/2012 3:48:16 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool:Lastly I do have the secret of time. Big claim. But I back up everything I ever say. But I dont know how comfortable I am with giving it away so easily.

Don't worry about it, I already did!

The Fool: Good job. Respect!!!

The Fool: Examining it closely, its still not complete, though! But stil great. if you figured out yourself.

Einstien: But there is no physical law for cause and effect.

The Fool: The problem is that cause and effect depends on time not the other way around for there would be no way to know what was the cause and what was the effect if it was not time dependent. So if this is paragraph is right this can't be true that cause and effect is an infinite regress, no less then time is....hmmmm ;)

Einstien: Infinite amount of time must have passed in order to arrive at this point.

The Fool: So if time is change this is still problematic, for we use time to measure change!!!!

Einstien: BUT the fact that time is still elapsing shows us that an infinite amount of time has NOT elapsed.

The Fool: Correction; the fact that change is still occuring. If anything you have shown time to be superflous, to any explanation. Why not we do speak of times instead of just change?

Einstien: Ergo, time has a beginning: at the uncaused initial state.

The Fool: This is a false conclusion from what you have said. To say uncaused is just to say not caused, but then how did it start, random? if you say god which I assume you are getting at, because there was nothing in your account of why this would follow, it would make god synonomous with random?

I am sure you will be able to patch the leaks though. Good luck.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 4:11:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 11:46:23 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: The problem is that cause and effect depends on time not the other way around for there would be no way to know what was the cause and what was the effect if it was not time dependent. So if this is paragraph is right this can't be true that cause and effect is an infinite regress, no less then time is....hmmmm ;)
You are confusing 2 different positions that I have stated independently. Cause & effect work within the framework of time, I have not said otherwise. What I did say is that you cannot use cause & effect alone to explain time because it would lead to an infinite regress of cause & effect.

Einstien: Infinite amount of time must have passed in order to arrive at this point.
The Fool: So if time is change this is still problematic
Here you are mixing the 2 different positions: (1) time is an infinite regress of cause & effect; (2) time is change. I agree with 2 not with 1. If 1 were true, an infinite amount of time must have elapsed before today, yet clearly time keeps elapsing clearly indicating that an infinite amount of time has NOT passed yet. Regardless, if time is change, it is not problematic as I have shown.

The Fool: ...for we use time to measure change!!!!
So you are saying that we use time to measure time; other than repeating yourself, how's that a problem?

Einstien: BUT the fact that time is still elapsing shows us that an infinite amount of time has NOT elapsed.
The Fool: Correction; the fact that change is still occuring.
Time elapsing = change occurring, no correction necessary.

The Fool: If anything you have shown time to be superflous, to any explanation.
Of course, it is a FUNDAMENTAL unit. I just used another word (change) as an explanation to better reveal its nature.

The Fool: Why not we do speak of times instead of just change?
That's semantics. Besides, when one thinks of it as change it helps one better understand the nature of time.

Einstien: Ergo, time has a beginning: at the uncaused initial state.
The Fool: This is a false conclusion from what you have said.
Not at all. It is a logical conclusion. If time is NOT infinitely regressive (which is what I am saying) then it must start at some point: Big Bang t=0, for example.

The Fool: To say uncaused is just to say not caused, but then how did it start, random?
No. It existed timelessly in the Alpha State. Why? One of the MOST fundamental laws of physics: energy/matter CANNOT be CREATED or DESTROYED. You see, things do not just "pop" into existence and existence is the default state of the Universe because non-existence does not exist! Which leads us to another definition: the Universe. I define the Universe to be all that is: all of existence. This includes everything except nonexistence which is of course a contradiction and does not exist!

The Fool: ...if you say god which I assume you are getting at, because there was nothing in your account of why this would follow, it would make god synonomous with random?
Nope. No god required.

I am sure you will be able to patch the leaks though. Good luck.
No leaks to patch up so far!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 6:55:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 4:11:15 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 2/14/2012 11:46:23 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: The problem is that cause and effect depends on time not the other way around for there would be no way to know what was the cause and what was the effect if it was not time dependent. So if this is paragraph is right this can't be true that cause and effect is an infinite regress, no less then time is....hmmmm ;)
You are confusing 2 different positions that I have stated independently. Cause & effect work within the framework of time, I have not said otherwise. What I did say is that you cannot use cause & effect alone to explain time because it would lead to an infinite regress of cause & effect.

Einstien: Infinite amount of time must have passed in order to arrive at this point.
The Fool: So if time is change this is still problematic
Here you are mixing the 2 different positions: (1) time is an infinite regress of cause & effect; (2) time is change. I agree with 2 not with 1. If 1 were true, an infinite amount of time must have elapsed before today, yet clearly time keeps elapsing clearly indicating that an infinite amount of time has NOT passed yet. Regardless, if time is change, it is not problematic as I have shown.

The Fool: ...for we use time to measure change!!!!
So you are saying that we use time to measure time; other than repeating yourself, how's that a problem?

Einstien: BUT the fact that time is still elapsing shows us that an infinite amount of time has NOT elapsed.
The Fool: Correction; the fact that change is still occuring.
Time elapsing = change occurring, no correction necessary.

The Fool: If anything you have shown time to be superflous, to any explanation.
Of course, it is a FUNDAMENTAL unit. I just used another word (change) as an explanation to better reveal its nature.

The Fool: Why not we do speak of times instead of just change?
That's semantics. Besides, when one thinks of it as change it helps one better understand the nature of time.

Einstien: Ergo, time has a beginning: at the uncaused initial state.
The Fool: This is a false conclusion from what you have said.
Not at all. It is a logical conclusion. If time is NOT infinitely regressive (which is what I am saying) then it must start at some point: Big Bang t=0, for example.

The Fool: To say uncaused is just to say not caused, but then how did it start, random?
No. It existed timelessly in the Alpha State. Why? One of the MOST fundamental laws of physics: energy/matter CANNOT be CREATED or DESTROYED. You see, things do not just "pop" into existence and existence is the default state of the Universe because non-existence does not exist! Which leads us to another definition: the Universe. I define the Universe to be all that is: all of existence. This includes everything except nonexistence which is of course a contradiction and does not exist!

The Fool: ...if you say god which I assume you are getting at, because there was nothing in your account of why this would follow, it would make god synonomous with random?
Nope. No god required.

I am sure you will be able to patch the leaks though. Good luck.
No leaks to patch up so far!

The Fool:aww. oh yah looks complete. I must have been fooled again. :(
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2012 4:46:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/23/2012 1:08:30 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
CERN was wrong, told you so!

http://www.foxnews.com...

More I told you so's: http://www.sciencedaily.com...
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2012 7:16:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2011 11:13:57 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/19/2011 4:58:39 AM, Kinesis wrote:
It hasn't been confirmed confirmed. All they've done is rule out some possible sources of interference. The official release is: "This test confirms the accuracy of OPERA's timing measurement, ruling out one potential source of systematic error. The new measurements do not change the initial conclusion. Nevertheless, the observed anomaly in the neutrinos' time of flight from CERN to Gran Sasso still needs further scrutiny and independent measurement before it can be refuted or confirmed"

This.

It won't be confirmed until their results are exhaustively peer reviewed, and even then, the scientific community won't accept the results until they are replicated multiple times in other places.

If the discovery is true, it means Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity is wrong (which would upend modern physics) or that time travel is possible.

Well. To be fair we already know it's wrong (due to it compatibility with quantum mechanics on scales on which both are applicable), but this will be a new area in which it is wrong.