Why Can't We Travel Faster Than Light?

[ToraToraTora]

....because we are already travelling through spacetime at the speed of light, there is only one speed in spacetime.

&t=6s

 

 

 

[ToraToraTora]

Andy, clare has beaten you to death with more patience than I could muster, yet you stick with your original BS, you are beyond help.

[andy-hughes]

TTT - I'm unsure why you are so angry with me, nor do I especially care.

But all I've done is point out a simple fact - the future is unknown.

I have not dismissed anyone, or their views, so why don't you calm down and stop being pointlessly rude.

[ClareTG0ld]

The point about the dice example, though, is that even if the future is unknown in one sense, there are still plenty of constraints that can be put on it. We don't always know what will happen, but we can sometimes say, with confidence, what won't. What your "simple fact" misses is all of the detail that allows us to weigh these things against each other -- and, in this context, to be able to assess what's likely to change about, and what's likely to remain fixed as part of, the scientific consensus.

To take two examples:

1. There is no reason to expect that the nature of the speed of light as an immutable barrier will be shown, at some point, to be false (although, as I mentioned earlier, there may be ways to bend the rules by finding shorter routes to distant places);

2. There's every reason to expect that, say, our current understanding the nature and limits of life will continue to grow, as we are still barely beginning to explore our solar system, let alone the galaxy at large.

Of course, I can't say how that understanding will change, but that it's going to in many wonderful ways I have no doubt.

[andy-hughes]

Clare - All I have said is that we don't know what the future holds, be that ten thousand years from now, or ten minutes.

You have an interesting way of agreeing with that simple notion.

[ClareTG0ld]

And all I've said is that your simplistic analysis of what we can and can't say about the futue is way too simplistic and that, perhaps, you'd benefit from learning a lot more about the things you're discussing. And, maybe, I don't know, checking some of your arguments once in a while for basic accuracy.

[andy-hughes]

Clare - If you want to over think and over analyse a simple truth, be my guest.

It doesn't change the simple truth of what I am saying.

I am unsure why you have such difficulty in accepting that the future is unknown.

Or if you do accept it, your difficulty in a simple acknowledgement of a simple fact. 

[douglas9401]

Ye gods and little fishes, the bumptiousness is strong in this one.

[tomus42]

We don't know what science will discover in the future. It may yet prove that cheese is the key to cold nuclear fusion.

No-one can say that won't happen. What we can know for sure is that it's unlikely based on current knowledge.

[andy-hughes]

Douglas, the grown ups are talking now there's a good boy.

[andy-hughes]

Thank you tomus - it's not difficult,  is it.

[Zacs-Master]

ClareT, sorry, I missed your comment 'I hope you don't mind if I take the opportunity to correct you on something I think you were discussing in another thread a month or so back: she/her'

feel free to correct me. 

[tomus42]

It's not difficult, but it depends how you argue it andy.

It's possible to come across like an arrogant pompous twit if you're too arrogant and pompous about it.

[royfromaus]

And I nearly had an early night.

[andy-hughes]

Tomus - If you feel that's how I come across, that's obviously not my intention. 

I have responded to each post directed with courtesy, I have taken on direct rudeness and been sarcastic with pointless agitators.

I've doing all those things for twenty-three years and counting.

If you find.me as you described, I regret that, but you can't please everyone.

[andy-hughes]

Roy - Since you have nothing relevant to add - as usual - don't let us delay you.

[tomus42]

Andy, to be fair I think you're the only person I've ever seen on here that has admitted to being wrong or or changing their opinion about anything, and for that I admire you.

You can get to bed now Roy.

[andy-hughes]

Thank you tomus, that is much appreciated. 

[ClareTG0ld]

// I am unsure why you have such difficulty in accepting that the future is unknown.

Or if you do accept it, your difficulty in a simple acknowledgement of a simple fact.  //

The point of the dice example is that it's a clear demonstration that actually, in some ways, the future is known. It's then an exception to the rule.

If a "simple fact" has clear exceptions then it is not simple, nor a fact, and demands a more complete analysis, sometimes even case-by-case. What you've classified as overanalysis etc is, in reality, just recognising this complexity that you've overlooked.

In this case, for example, isn't it worth taking the time to understand why scientists assert that the speed of light is an absolute limit? Even if, at the end of that process of understanding, you still came to feel that maybe in the future this claim might change, might it not make it easier to assess how likely such a change in scientific consensus might be?

And, if not, then perhaps you can see what I'm really taking issue with, which is this implicit position that not knowing much about it, and not being "bothered" to look into it more, is somehow being turned into a virtue. Why bother learning anything about the present state of scientific research if it could all change next week? And then change right back again the week after, and perhaps so on, ad infinitum? It's turning expertise into a vice; the vast infinity of the future becomes a shield to hide behind and ensure that you can never be wrong, and indeed that you never need to do any work at all to develop or test your position.

If it doesn't matter that you don't understand a topic; if it doesn't matter that you aren't interested in changing that; if it doesn't matter, either, that a core anecdote shaping your position is just completely wrong; then all of these are, or at least should be, fatal flaws to be addressed before offering an opinion on it.

And, finally, I acknowledge that I've written rather a lot on this, and more perhaps than I should have. But I'm passionate about these sorts of thing, and think it's worth trying to argue from a position of understanding rather than lack thereof, and to challenge those who seem to think it's not important enough to bother.

[Zacs-Master]

Well said, ClareT. 

As you're here, would you like to clarify the gender pronoun 'thing' you mentioned?

[Khandro]

ClareTG: // in some ways, the future is known//

Indeed, and according to a book I'm at the moment struggling with on quantum mechanics, the future can influence the past !