The science behind RHCs liver thread

I'm not going to say anything is IMPOSSIBLE just impossible based upon our current understanding.

Light can certainly be slowed down, so it might be possible to sped up. Light speed might vary in different parts of the universe. It might change over time. Along with light everything else might be able to move faster.

There has certainly been prominent scientists looking into whether the speed of light has always been the current constant.

From everything we currently know though, you can't go faster than light and it's been tested many times. One of the pillars of the scientific method though is that everything is subject to review and retesting.

 

Science fiction atm, but what if we could nip in and out of this universe? Imagine fish (intelligent ones, or dolphins, maybe) telling each other that it's impossibe/would take infinite energy to travel faster than sound underwater, therefore any dreams of travelling from, say NZ to LA in 12 hours are impossible. Then up pops one particularly handsome and well hung male and says 'But what if we left the water and went through the sky?' . Yes, impossible - for now. Anyway, you're right - the science that we know of (is there any other source?) says we can't. Just one question though - how do you reckon entanglement works?

 

How do you know that exactly?

Beyond our own universe they have to use imagination of what it would look like.

 

It's when you don't use conditioner after washing your hair

 

That equation is proven to be correct day in, day out. Mathematics applies whichever universe you're in. That's just the way it is

 

We don't yet know if there is anything "beyond our universe". Multiverse theories are just speculative.

Cool and daunting if true though.

 

Mathematics can't apply to a theory you have no way of testing. Ie dif universes.

May be true in our own universe, but to say applies to all, with no way of knowing, not letting you have that one.

 

It's a question of philosophy

 

You don't that, but I'm rather painting myself into a quasi-religious corner here now, so I'll take the dog for a walk and ponder it, much in the way the likes of Einstein, Maxwell, Planck and me were wont to do.

 

Always wanted to study philosophy.

But to me it seems a bit close to religion and faith. I like facts.

Or as the wums like to say fackts

 

Eh? And yes I do. I'm not from around here really

 

Philosophy IS fact. That's quintessentially what it is. Acquire 'A History of Western Philosophy' by Bertrand Russell. That'll keep you quiet for a bit. When you've finished it, come back and let me know

 

'Know', soz. Intergalactic time-travellers distracted me.

 

Reading a book at the moment by Noah Yurah Harari called Homo Deus (follow on from Sapiens) thatmakes just that point. As does bede Rundle, since we're dropping Russell into the argument.

 

Descartes walked into a bar, the barmaid asked if he would like a drink.

He said "I think not," and disappeared.

 

Nietzsche walked into a bar, the barmaid asked him if he would like a beer, he said he could think of no intrinsic reason he shouldn't drink.

 

Some say combine harvesters get close

 

Philosophy is a fact as is religion.

The study of philosophy, like the study of religion can be factual.

Participation on the other hand? Hmmm....

 

Maybe they go faster but we're unable to detect them.

 

Actually, you can detect them but you need a special device called a red hadron collider. They're quite crude, but there's currently only one in the world, in Latchford of all places. They use a complex chemical reaction involving Carling and weed to eliminate measurement noise normally incurred when measuring their speed, so that their true, faster-than-light speed can be accurately observed.