Expelled--No Intelligence Allowed Movie lacks intelligence?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
[
Its like the monkey with the typewriter analogy. Given the time, the Monkey will eventually write out the complete works of Shakespeare. I would say this is THE Shakespeare of our universe.

The problem with your analogy is this: Where did the monkeys come from? Where did the typwriters come from?

There is nothing that I've ever seen that can point to a single begninning of the universe. People like to point to the "big bang", but there had to be something before that, right? Or did the universe spontaneously create itself? Kind of violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, doesn't it?

Not at all. There can't have been anything "before" the big bang because time began at the big bang. You have to visualize is right. The big bang is an explosion of space through time. Time is just another dimension of space, the one that our conventional 3-dimensional space is expanding through. All the matter and energy is conserved.

 

[bsobel]

Not at all. There can't have been anything "before" the big bang because time began at the big bang. You have to visualize is right. The big bang is an explosion of space through time. Time is just another dimension of space, the one that our conventional 3-dimensional space is expanding through. All the matter and energy is conserved.

I suggest you catch up on M-theory

 

[Lithan]

Creation Science is explained by the fact that they actually believe that entropy supports their solution. In other words, they don't believe the sun exists. Is The Visene guy smart? I don't know, he never seemed particularly smart (or funny) to me on Win Ben Stein's Money. But even smart people can act amazingly stupid when religion is involved. If you believe enough, and are eager enough to believe something, you just fail to see the facts and think rationally. There's something inherently wrong with a principle accepted on faith being used to argue against a scientific principle... which is why most evolutionary scientists (Mr Flying Spaghetti Monster aside) avoid entering any "us vs them" sort of debate that the creation scientists are so desperate to start.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Lithan
Creation Science is explained by the fact that they actually believe that entropy supports their solution. In other words, they don't believe the sun exists. Is The Visene guy smart? I don't know, he never seemed particularly smart (or funny) to me on Win Ben Stein's Money. But even smart people can act amazingly stupid when religion is involved. If you believe enough, and are eager enough to believe something, you just fail to see the facts and think rationally. There's something inherently wrong with a principle accepted on faith being used to argue against a scientific principle... which is why most evolutionary scientists (Mr Flying Spaghetti Monster aside) avoid entering any "us vs them" sort of debate that the creation scientists are so desperate to start.

How do you know what they believe?
- "creationists" are as DIVIDED as Evolutionists

There's something inherently wrong with a "pseudo-scientific theory" accepted on faith being used to argue against a Religious or metaphysical principle

it also appears to me that If you believe enough in Scientific Bullsh!t, and are eager enough to believe something, you just fail to see the facts and think rationally.

you agree with me! .. just a slightly altered viewpoint that yours is as limited and as HYPOCRITICAL as the Pseudo-christians

two groups of hypocrites .. go fight each other to the death!
- may the best god win

 

[leingod86]

Science is agnostic. If there's a divine power that created life, that's swell. Just prove it through empirical evidence, replicate the data, and then present it for peer review for them to replicate it.

That's how science works. It's not that it hates religion. Science doesn't care, it just wants the truth.

The truth (as has been shown through the aforementioned process) points towards the Earth being older than 6, 000 years old, evolution happened and is still happening, and religious fanatics keep pleading for their "god of the gaps" to explain everything else. The more those gaps narrow, the farther they move the goal post and the more audacious their claims become.

Edit: On a side note, if you're "religious", I don't hate you, or think you're less intelligent. The people this message is targetted at are the intentionally deceitful dealers of misinformation, like the director of this film.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: leingod86
Science is agnostic. If there's a divine power that created life, that's swell. Just prove it through empirical evidence, replicate the data, and then present it for peer review for them to replicate it.

That's how science works. It's not that it hates religion. Science doesn't care, it just wants the truth.

The truth (as has been shown through the aforementioned process) points towards the Earth being older than 6, 000 years old, evolution happened and is still happening, and religious fanatics keep pleading for their "god of the gaps" to explain everything else. The more those gaps narrow, the farther they move the goal post and the more audacious their claims become.

Edit: On a side note, if you're "religious", I don't hate you, or think you're less intelligent. The people this message is targetted at are the intentionally deceitful dealers of misinformation, like the director of this film.

Me religious ? yes - ANTI-religious
- i want to destroy and replace it with a new practical one

May i expand your universe for a moment? what humans call "science" is bullsh!t

it is pseudo-science based on a principle of "observable" phenomena - just like our ancestors the apes did. Your "Science" has not changed in 10,000 years and they have the same stupid "peer review" by other unqualified monkeys

True science - represented by - let's give a recent example - Einstein - was not Agnostic .. nor was his principle accepted by the monkeys in charge of the "scientific establishment" until he had to fricking explain over and over and fight for it - till he died - we are just STARTING to get it now! He had a LOT more to say about gravity and what happens when a particle IS accelerated to light speed .. it changes .. to what ? he died first and may well know for himself now

Do not confuse the clowns with alphabet soup behind their surname - they are just as clueless as the Religions leaders; any "pope' that rules by exercising influence over the stupid; they like their "influence" and for "lesser mortals" to worship them and say "Doctor" as though he sh!ts differently they we or any other primate does - IGNORANCE! exalted as "science" complete with Altars and Temples
.. Christ DID say his followers were "sheep" .. and the scientists are stupidly stubborn - like goats.
Both creatures are actually pretty cool - i just prefer goats over sheepies - i like to eat them .. especially lamb
:Q

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: leingod86
Science is agnostic. If there's a divine power that created life, that's swell. Just prove it through empirical evidence, replicate the data, and then present it for peer review for them to replicate it.

That's how science works. It's not that it hates religion. Science doesn't care, it just wants the truth.

The truth (as has been shown through the aforementioned process) points towards the Earth being older than 6, 000 years old, evolution happened and is still happening, and religious fanatics keep pleading for their "god of the gaps" to explain everything else. The more those gaps narrow, the farther they move the goal post and the more audacious their claims become.

Edit: On a side note, if you're "religious", I don't hate you, or think you're less intelligent. The people this message is targetted at are the intentionally deceitful dealers of misinformation, like the director of this film.

May i expand your universe for a moment? what humans call "science" is bullsh!t

it is pseudo-science based on a principle of "observable" phenomena - just like our ancestors the apes did. Your "Science" has not changed in 10,000 years and they have the same stupid "peer review" by other unqualified monkeys

True science - represented by - let's give a recent example - Einstein - was not Agnostic .. nor was his principle accepted by the moneys in charge of the "scientific establishment" until he have to fricking explain it till he died - we are just STARTING to get it now! He had a LOT more to say about gravity and what happens when a particle IS accelerated to light speed .. it changes .. to what ? he died first and may well know now

do not confuse the clowns with alphabet soup behind their surname - they are just as clueless as the Religions leaders, any "pope' that rules by exercising influence over the stupid; they like their "influence" and for "lesser mortals" to worship them and say "Doctor" as though he sh!ts differently they we or any other primate does - IGNORANCE! .. Christ DID say his followers were "sheep" .. and the scientists are stupidly stubborn - like goats.
Both creatures are actually pretty cool - i just prefer goats over sheepies - i like to eat them .. especially lamb
:Q

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[apoppin]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

You actually mean YOU have no idea what *I* am talking about

clearly ..
perhaps unrelated, but i found that fools always resort to ridicule when that happens

 

[leingod86]

Considering that our scientific method has uncovered several previously unknown phenomena, compared to the success rate of metaphysical psycho-babble...I think I'll go with what we have. If you come up with something better be sure to let everyone know!

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: leingod86
Science is agnostic. If there's a divine power that created life, that's swell. Just prove it through empirical evidence, replicate the data, and then present it for peer review for them to replicate it.

That's how science works. It's not that it hates religion. Science doesn't care, it just wants the truth.

The truth (as has been shown through the aforementioned process) points towards the Earth being older than 6, 000 years old, evolution happened and is still happening, and religious fanatics keep pleading for their "god of the gaps" to explain everything else. The more those gaps narrow, the farther they move the goal post and the more audacious their claims become.

Edit: On a side note, if you're "religious", I don't hate you, or think you're less intelligent. The people this message is targetted at are the intentionally deceitful dealers of misinformation, like the director of this film.

Me religious ? yes - ANTI-religious
- i want to destroy and replace it with a new practical one

May i expand your universe for a moment? what humans call "science" is bullsh!t

it is pseudo-science based on a principle of "observable" phenomena - just like our ancestors the apes did. Your "Science" has not changed in 10,000 years and they have the same stupid "peer review" by other unqualified monkeys

True science - represented by - let's give a recent example - Einstein - was not Agnostic .. nor was his principle accepted by the monkeys in charge of the "scientific establishment" until he had to fricking explain over and over and fight for it - till he died - we are just STARTING to get it now! He had a LOT more to say about gravity and what happens when a particle IS accelerated to light speed .. it changes .. to what ? he died first and may well know for himself now

Do not confuse the clowns with alphabet soup behind their surname - they are just as clueless as the Religions leaders; any "pope' that rules by exercising influence over the stupid; they like their "influence" and for "lesser mortals" to worship them and say "Doctor" as though he sh!ts differently they we or any other primate does - IGNORANCE! exalted as "science" complete with Altars and Temples
.. Christ DID say his followers were "sheep" .. and the scientists are stupidly stubborn - like goats.
Both creatures are actually pretty cool - i just prefer goats over sheepies - i like to eat them .. especially lamb
:Q

You are deluded.

Einstein said everything he could have said about gravity using his own research. He gave General Relativity to the world, so that it could be tested, and proved it was true.

In the last years of his life, he said nothing more about gravity. As stated before, he was looking for the TOE, not trying to call a press conference saying that he had discovered another facet of relativity, except for the fact that it is mutually incompatable with quantum mechanics. If he REALLY had more to say, would he have wanted to get medical treatment? No, he refused on the principle that he didn't want to extend his life uncessarily.

And yes, he was "Agnostic' He was not a diest. He didn't believe in a God. He believed in a higher force that governs the world. However, he believed that his higher force played by the rules. However, we now know that at the quantum level, nothing plays bu the rules, and that he was wrong. However, his "God" is in fact the TOE, an explanation of how everything in the universe works.

Einstein STATED TIME AND TIME again that YOU CANNOT move AT the SPEED OF LIGHT. HIS ENTIRE LIFE WAS DEDICATED TO THIS FACT. Special Relativity? General Relativity? they all have cold hard truths. That you cannot reach the speed of light. His theory of Special/General Relativity were never disputed. The scientists say his papers, and loved it. They did experiments and lo and behold., it held up to observable data.


If you can't conduct science by observation, then we have no way of advancing. Some guy saw that this chemical caused this bacteria to die, or that this equation perfectly aligned with observable data. THIS is science. Religion has no basis in a world where everything is based on observation.

Scientists are slaves to observation and the world. But I would rather this than believe in some God out there tweaking some knobs

This is the best kind of world there is. There is nothing more practical than a society based on observation and logic.

 

[apoppin]

You are deluded.

Einstein said everything he said about gravity.

You can stop right there with the BS .. like your silly theory of Einstein's later motivation .. it won't fly
. . . and who the HELL is talking about

another facet of relativity, except for the fact that it is mutually incompatable [sic.] with quantum mechanics

- NOT *i*!:|
Is that what you think i am saying? .. you are lost

Stop idolizing your professors and their holy text books; other primates with feet of clay and brains focused on sex all the time.
Haven't you noticed a *secret*? .. some of you ARE smarter than they are and they do hold you down - Why?
- because they are SLAVES to an Establishment just as Priests are to their Religion and Both will be Censured if they Dare to Disagree with Established *Dogma*
-pseudo-scientific or hateful religion

they will not give each other an "inch" because they are fixed on their preconceived theories and won't even TRY to prove "god" exists - or not.
- a simple test, imo


You think Einstein was *finished* with his Unified theory ?
- i would think that very idea is insane

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: apoppin

You are deluded.

Einstein said everything he said about gravity.

You can stop right there with the BS .. like your silly theory of Einstein's later motivation .. it won't fly
. . . and who the HELL is talking about

another facet of relativity, except for the fact that it is mutually incompatable [sic.] with quantum mechanics

- NOT *i*!:|
Is that what you think i am saying? .. you are lost

Stop idolizing your professors and their holy text books; other primates with feet of clay and brains focused on sex all the time.
Haven't you noticed a *secret*? .. some of you ARE smarter than they are and they do hold you down - Why?
- because they are SLAVES to an Establishment just as Priests are to their Religion and Both will be Censured if they Dare to Disagree with Established *Dogma*
-pseudo-scientific or hateful religion

they will not give each other an "inch" because they are fixed on their preconceived theories and won't even TRY to prove "god" exists - or not.
- a simple test, imo


You think Einstein was *finished* with his Unified theory ?
- i would think that very idea is insane

I never said that Einstein finished his Unified Theory. No one is any closer than Einstein is in trying to GET to a TOE.

However, your theory that we can go faster than light using gravity would be laughed at by any educated scientist.

And with the relativity comment, I was making a point that Einstein didnt accomplish much after his papers on Relativity. He spent his alter life secluded in his home looking for the TOE. He had nothing more to say on Relativity because there was nothing more to say until it could be unified with Quantum mechanics.

I don't "Idolize" my professors. I respect them and try to learn from them. They do research into these topics, and I want to learn from it. Any educational establishment will always have restrictions, but we learn what we need to learn and we can get the rest ourselves.

Sure they are "slaves" to the establishment, but that doesn't make them any less qualified to teach what they teach.

Scientists are opposed to changes in our most basic of theories because that would tear down research. What would happen if our theories of relativity are wrong? The space program would be unable to account for time differences in satellites, thereby destroying our GPS systems, our entire view of the universe would be skewed because our models would be wrong..

At this point, so MUCH is dedicated on a couple of theories, and at the point where these theories have been UNENDINGLY PROVEN to work time and time again, you can see why scientists would be hesitant to challenge these things. And for scientists who DO challenge Relativity, their experiments only come to prove the correctness of Relativity.
Obviously, my point is confined to controversy over relativity, but these point apply to any "preconcieved theories" that are mentioned. These "theories" that we base our sciences on aren't exactly as fallible as the "aether" theory.

Also, you can't prove something that is based on faith. How do you prove God?

However, people are sheepies .. and there *needs* to be a practical, self-evolving and self-adapting "moral code" or [gasp] religion to REPLACE the crap we have now [imo]

Lies. There is no reason why a atheist society cannot create its own moral code without a need for religion. And if modern religions are indicative of moral code, humanity will become very good at selective amnesia and doublethik.

 

[leingod86]

prove "god" exists - or not.
- a simple test, imo

orly? Do tell

 

[apoppin]

However, your theory that we can go faster than light using gravity would be laughed at by any educated scientist.

Did you see any proposal from me supported by highest mathematics?
-i don't believe it is "my theory" anyway
- but i do have some things for you to consider ...

He believed in a higher force that governs ...

as i do

finally

YOU CANNOT move AT the SPEED OF LIGHT

what is your point ? .. i never said "as myself" .. or "YOU" , although i wish you'd go first. [for the glory ]

OK,
- as a single particle [let's say] approaches Light Speed .. what happens?
--does it remain exactly the same at this threshold - in theory? What happens with time and is there any speculation about either energy or mass?

How might you - with nearly unlimited energy at your disposal - accelerate a "particle" of nearly infinitesimal smallness to near light speed?

Answer that first

oh and *finally*

Religion has no basis in a world

i want it to *die* - if you are talking about that Whore - a now useless leech that sucks mankind dry and that frolics with politics and attempts to change world events as any other King over kings - "organized religion"; yes, they are holding back progress as is pseudo-science.

However, people are sheepies .. and there *needs* to be a practical, self-evolving and self-adapting "moral code" or [gasp] religion to REPLACE the crap we have now [imo]

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: leingod86

prove "god" exists - or not.

orly? Do tell

Yes

just logic

you only have to prove it to ONE group of people right?
- religious people, right? "Scientists know better", in your view they need no proof that 'God' does NOT exist, correct? They would be looking for Proof that 'He' does ... following my reasoning?

i pause to see if i have agreement before i spill the beans

Lies. There is no reason why a atheist society cannot create its own moral code without a need for religion. And if modern religions are indicative of moral code, humanity will become very good at selective amnesia and doublethik

first we have to prove god does not exist to religious people first, OK

they are going to "react", remember - think practically in a "social engineering" kind of way .. to mold society for their own good - that usually takes religion - although that 'religion' ENCOMPASSES and respects atheists - it is a moral code that also appeals to the superstitious

i believe it will take 10,000 more years to breed that out .. we need something for the "mid term"

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: apoppin

However, your theory that we can go faster than light using gravity would be laughed at by any educated scientist.

Did you see any proposal from me supported by highest mathematics?
-i don't believe it is "my theory" anyway
- but i do have some things for you to consider ...

He believed in a higher force that governs ...

as i do

finally

YOU CANNOT move AT the SPEED OF LIGHT

what is your point ? .. i never said "as myself" .. or "YOU" , although i wish you'd go first. [for the glory ]

OK,
- as a single particle [let's say] approaches Light Speed .. what happens?
--does it remain exactly the same at this threshold - in theory? What happens with time and is there any speculation about either energy or mass?

How might you - with nearly unlimited energy at your disposal - accelerate a "particle" of nearly infinitesimal smallness to near light speed?

Answer that first

oh and *finally*

Religion has no basis in a world

i want it to *die* - if you are talking about that Whore - a now useless leech that sucks mankind dry and that frolics with politics and attempts to change world events as any other King over kings - "organized religion"; yes, they are holding back progress as is pseudo-science.

However, people are sheepies .. and there *needs* to be a practical, self-evolving and self-adapting "moral code" or [gasp] religion to REPLACE the crap we have now [imo]

His "higher force" isn't a "higher force" in the sense of a God. Its just a mother of all equations. a law that governs the workings of the universe? I believe in this in the sense that I believe a TOE will be found someday.

1) When a single particle approaches the speed of light, it becomes increasingly heavier. As you keep approaching it, you have to keep putting in an exponentially larger amount of energy to keep the particle accelerating. We have been able to accelerate particles to like 99.999999999999% of c, but the infinite amount of energy required to push it past the speed of light makes it impossible to get TO c.

2) Im not sure what you mean by the second point? But time in the frame of the particle would probably be incredibly slow, due to relativity. It would have an enormous amount of energy from the energy we are pumping into it to keep it accelerating.

Anyway, in order to get that particle to near light speed, you have to use accelerators.

 

[apoppin]

His "higher force" isn't a "higher force" in the sense of a God. Its just a mother of all equations. a law that governs the workings of the universe? I believe in this in the sense that I believe a TOE will be found someday.

what is different than i said

i just "allow" for a "god" for those that require one

 

[apoppin]

Im not sure what you mean by the second point? But time in the frame of the particle would probably be incredibly slow, due to relativity. It would have an enormous amount of energy from the energy we are pumping into it to keep it accelerating.

Anyway, in order to get that particle to near light speed, you have to use accelerators.

So you have a single particle of near infinitesimal smallness ... accelerated to near light speed by enormous forces - think tapping the Sun's fusion reactor as energy as your "particle accelerator" for a tinniest sub-division of a particle possible .. getting slower and heavier .. what does it "do" with the energy at near [0.9999999...%] light speed?

... theoretically ... i want your explanation and the theory

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Im not sure what you mean by the second point? But time in the frame of the particle would probably be incredibly slow, due to relativity. It would have an enormous amount of energy from the energy we are pumping into it to keep it accelerating.

Anyway, in order to get that particle to near light speed, you have to use accelerators.

So you have a single particle of near infinitesimal smallness ... accelerated to near light speed by enormous forces - think tapping the Sun's fusion reactor as energy as your "particle accelerator" for a tinniest sub-division of a particle possible .. getting slower and heavier .. what does it "do" with the energy at near [0.9999999...%] light speed?

... theoretically ... i want your explanation and the theory

Well, that particle of infinitestimal smallness will still have mass, which means its still under normal physical laws.

And even if we had the power output of the sun, it wouldn't matter

As for what does it "do" with the extra energy, it just accelerates.

You go from 99%c to 99.9,99.99,99.999,99.9999,99.99999,99.99999 so on as you keep inputting energy. At some point, you will reach a point where you don't have any extra energy to put in, because as I said before, you need exponentially more energy as you keep making it faster. However, you still wont hit the barrier.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: apoppin

Im not sure what you mean by the second point? But time in the frame of the particle would probably be incredibly slow, due to relativity. It would have an enormous amount of energy from the energy we are pumping into it to keep it accelerating.

Anyway, in order to get that particle to near light speed, you have to use accelerators.

So you have a single particle of near infinitesimal smallness ... accelerated to near light speed by enormous forces - think tapping the Sun's fusion reactor as energy as your "particle accelerator" for a tinniest sub-division of a particle possible .. getting slower and heavier .. what does it "do" with the energy at near [0.9999999...%] light speed?

... theoretically ... i want your explanation and the theory

Well, that particle of infinitestimal smallness will still have mass, which means its still under normal physical laws.

And even if we had the power output of the sun, it wouldn't matter

As for what does it "do" with the extra energy, it just accelerates.

You go from 99%c to 99.9,99.99,99.999,99.9999,99.99999,99.99999 so on as you keep inputting energy. At some point, you will reach a point where you don't have any extra energy to put in, because as I said before, you need exponentially more energy as you keep making it faster. However, you still wont hit the barrier.

i think you are just not keeping up .. we already have exceeded the speed of light

What are photons? .. they can travel faster than light

here are a few thing to consider

First the theories .. mostly classical

here is the *classic response* to which you refer:
http://www.livescience.com/mys...atter_light_speed.html

But astrophysicists have recently discovered gas and dust in two distant exploding stars moving at 99.9997 percent of the speed of light?about 2,000 mph too slow to make the cut.

When a super-massive star explodes, sometimes called a hypernova, it jettisons gas and dust into space with astonishing energy, in effect causing it to outshine most objects in the nearby universe. In the recently discovered explosions, about 200 Earth?s worth of material, in the form of stellar gas and dust, was propelled near the light-speed brink for a few moments.

Such a large amount of matter moving so quickly may seem extremely close to light speed , but the energy required to move even a little faster is nearly infinite. To understand this, Einstein?s famous E=mc2 equation is useful. But there's a more complex version, however, which accounts for velocity (v):

E=?mc2 where ?=1/(v 1-v2/c2)
If the equation looks confusing, here?s a summary: The faster an object moves, an exponentially larger amount of energy is needed to speed it up, which is why travelling at light speed requires an infinite?and impossible?amount of energy.

This is near-light speeds of matter observed using doppler effect around the black hole

That was '04 .. they are following up:
Gamma Ray bursts [particulate

Potential study [of course never depend on a wiki - follow the links back to the studies if you have an appetite for math]:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_wave

gravitational interaction is mediated by deformation of space-time geometry. Matter warps the geometry of space-time and these effects are, as with electric and magnetic fields, propagated at the speed of light. Thus, in the presence of matter, space-time becomes non-Euclidean, resolving the apparent conflict between Newton's proof of the conservation of angular momentum and Einstein's theory of special relativity. Mach's question regarding the bulging of rotating bodies is resolved because local space-time geometry is informing a rotating body about the rest of the universe. In Newton's theory of motion, space acts on objects, but is not acted upon. In Einstein's theory of motion, matter acts upon space-time geometry, deforming it, and space-time geometry acts upon matter

EPR paradox is a paradox in the following sense: if one takes quantum mechanics and adds some seemingly reasonable conditions (referred to as locality, realism, counter factual definiteness, and completeness), then one obtains a contradiction. However, quantum mechanics by itself does not appear to be internally inconsistent, nor ? as it turns out ? does it contradict relativity. As a result of further theoretical and experimental developments since the original EPR paper, most physicists today regard the EPR paradox as an illustration of how quantum mechanics violates classical intuitions.

there is a lot to consider besides "traditional"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...s_of_quantum_mechanics

and don't forget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

or "spin", quantum superposition along with its interference peaks from an electron wave persisting at all scales without a mechanism for removing them; philosophical or physical? and there is now an uncertainty principle.
-there is also the 'no cloning theorem'

i forgot where i got this: []

The state of one system can be entangled with the state of another system. For instance, one can use the Controlled NOT gate and the Walsh-Hadamard gate to entangle two qubits. This is not cloning. No well-defined state can be attributed to a subsystem of an entangled state. Cloning is a process whose end result is a separable state with identical factors.

HOWEVER .. the proof is tenuous at best and Similarly, cloning would violate the no teleportation theorem. And of course the EPR thought experiment need to be considered, i think.

What if Superluminal motion is real?
- just because most of earth's scientists dismiss it

And of course the concept of a "super shock wave" a type of intense propagating disturbance would provide the theoretical energy. We already know particles accelerated beyond the speed of light in a refractive medium create visible shock effects, a phenomenon known as Cherenkov radiation.

there are literally hundred of references and theories

and my favorite ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

One curious effect is that, unlike ordinary particles, the speed of a tachyon increases as its energy decreases. (For ordinary bradyonic matter, E increases with increasing velocity, becoming arbitrarily large as v approaches c, the speed of light.) Therefore, just as bradyons are forbidden to break the light-speed barrier, so too are tachyons forbidden from slowing down to below c, since to reach the barrier from either above or below requires infinite energy.

Quantizing tachyons shows that they must be spinless particles which obey Fermi-Dirac statistics, i,e. tachyons are scalar fermions, a combination which is not permitted for ordinary particles.[3] They also must be created and annihilated in pairs.

The existence of such particles would pose intriguing problems in modern physics. For example, taking the formalisms of electromagnetic radiation and supposing a tachyon had an electric charge?as there is no reason to suppose a priori that tachyons must be either neutral or charged?then a charged tachyon must lose energy as Cherenkov radiation?just as ordinary charged particles do when they exceed the local speed of light in a medium. A charged tachyon traveling in a vacuum therefore undergoes a constant proper time acceleration and, by necessity, its worldline forms a hyperbola in space-time. However, as we have seen, reducing a tachyon's energy increases its speed, so that the single hyperbola formed is of two oppositely charged tachyons with opposite momenta (same magnitude, opposite sign) which annihilate each other when they simultaneously reach infinite velocity at the same place in space. (At infinite velocity the two tachyons have no energy each and finite momentum of opposite direction, so no conservation laws are violated in their mutual annihilation. The time of annihilation is frame dependent.) Even an electrically neutral tachyon would be expected to lose energy via gravitational Cherenkov radiation, since it has a gravitational mass, and therefore increase in velocity as it travels, as described above.

shall i go on ?
-we better move this to Highly Technical if you want to construct a warp drive for a single particle
--in theory!!

Highly Technical

class apparently is "in session" - IF you start it .. i am quite busy and in the middle of a few important projects. i will check in i think.

as far as i am concerned this has already been done .. and we are back to "intelligence" other than our own - if you call it "intelligence" yet

please don't get me started on wormholes, the Alcubierre metric, or Quantum gravity; and the Scharnhorst effect may be applicable. ANd on top of that, you better be prepared to discuss Vacuum energy and the Casimir effect. Finally you need to take into consideration the Chronology protection conjecture .. for starters.
Doable, i'd say - NOTHING is "impossible"

I'd love to have Einstein back

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Photons are light. They are also massless, which lets you hit/exceed the speed of light.

The only other massless particle is the Gluon, which transmits the Strong Nuclear Force, but of course, they are in Hadrons, which we don't currently have the power to break open yet.

Also, Photons dont go faster than C, and your argument is still moot. We cannot make a particle with mass hit C, which is all that really matters.

All the links you refer to don't make you sound smarter, and they dont refute any of my arguments. They all still say that matter has gotten close to the speed of light, but not hit it.

I wonder where you got those cloning arguments from. That is random.

A tachyon is also a theoretical particle. We have no real proof they exist. Its like the graviton. We can predict what kind of properties it may have, but we still don't know if it exists or not.

And also, even if tachyons can go faster than light theoretically, they still cant transmit information faster than light, which is all that really matters.

We don't understand QM that well. QM is a random world where chaos prevails.

And please, stop linking like that, its annoying.

 

[Tab]

Damn, you mean I can't just post a bunch of links and emoticons to win a debate online? Shit

 

[apoppin]

it is random but it is applicable .. you are just presenting a classical view that says "impossible"

i am saying it is done .. regularly
--and i have just given you a bit of where the theory is currently heading - there are no established FAQs

.. and this discussion does not belong here .. this Thread is about a silly movie - we should move this to Highly Technical and i will be able to discuss with you there

Damn, you mean I can't just post a bunch of links and emoticons to win a debate online? Shit

asking my opinion? you clearly lack the talent

i don't care to win anything .. i already did

i am asking you to look outside what is "established"

We don't understand QM that well. QM is a random world where chaos prevails.

And please, stop linking like that, its annoying

Don't tell me what to do .. :|
- i find all your posts annoying


and clearly you don't understand .. i say it is NOT random!

 

[NikolaeVarius]

All your "research" in exceeding the speed of light establish one fact. Even if you cause a massless particle to get to C, you can't transmit information faster than c.

And your links also reestablish my point. A supernova/Gamma Ray burst, the most powerful forces in the galaxy (Explosion wise), cannot cause a particle to get to C.

You haven't "won" anything.

The links that "look outside establish fact" all work within the system. They all admit that they are NOT contradicting Relativity.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
All your "research" in exceeding the speed of light establish one fact. Even if you cause a massless particle to get to C, you can't transmit information faster than c.

And your links also reestablish my point. A supernova/Gamma Ray burst, the most powerful forces in the galaxy (Explosion wise), cannot cause a particle to get to C.

You haven't "won" anything.

The links that "look outside establish fact" all work within the system. They all admit that they are NOT contradicting Relativity.

Do you really believe it about "winning" ? .. that is what apes do
- i am into sharing .. and i love to see the latest .. i know some German scientists claimed to exceed lights speed and their study is being reviewed

and .. you made me do it

Faster Than Light Travel - How to Build a Warp Drive

You are invited to share there .. i am gone from here

this thread is about a stupid movie

sorry OP for the hijack