You should check out PBS Space Time on YouTube then

I love Brian; he is a pillar of the physics community. However, in the interest of time, he only got into Hawkin's shuttlecock interpretation.

There are others such Paul Steinhardt Eternal Inflation, and the universe being born out of black/white hole as described in the Penrose diagrams.

General relativity math is solid, but no one really knows how to interpret the singularity (if there is such a thing).

So it's a big deal because it confirms general relativity theory? Seems like we might actually learn something new with all the fuss about it.

"How exactly do you propose Einstein would have tested his theory of general relativity back in the early 1900s?"

Gee, I don't know, doofe. Why don't you google it and learn something?

"It wasn't until very recently, using atomic clocks on a plane and one on the ground was the general theory of relativity proven to be right."

Wrong.

In saying that it's possible the 'answer of consciousness' could come from somewhere completely unexpected, or unrelated, to what people are thinking now. Like the example he gave where it took something completely new (General Relativity) to explain Mercury.

It seemed pretty self-explanatory in the video.

General Relativity : Einstein vs. Newton

I couldn't claim to be an expert. There have been several 'flash'es over the years. A few of them can travel faster than light, and thus time travel.

Not sure how much general relativity could play into such a thing. It is a comic after all.

The last 30 seconds or so about "is general relativity in the state standards?" says kinda positive and negative things about the state of US education...

Positive: Good teachers can still teach special lessons about topics that they are passionate about if they can fit it into the time after they have covered the state (and test) mandated stuff.

Negative: They have to teach to the tests first.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
That blurry guy is a complete cunt. Don't care what religion you are, you discuss things with an open mind and try to see the other's point of view rather than seeing them as an opponent. I'd be said if you stopped providing your input. Ignoring him is a solution - a LOT of people do.


Thanks for your response I'll think on it.

The other thing that usually drives me insane is that he'll ask questions about something I've JUST answered! BUT, his literal lack of knowledge (in this case general relativity and special relativity) is making him spout buffoon and sadly very uninformed statements or opinions, often aimed at me and my previous post (well-informed and standard--backed up with testing and experimentation); which as I said is hilarious as I already answered it in that post "right above" and he can't read between the lines to see that the answer is sitting the for all to see, he just doesn't understand the answer, nor do I think he ever will see it very soon to be VERY fair and blunt. His main issue is with telling himself the truth in the first place and he can't yet do that with simple children's stories--not to be a snob or complete snide remark, but it is merely a fact that he will not accept the truth--faith and platitudes are far more important to him in his life right now than are being able to build:

An arena that can fit 100,000 people at night and day with the top open and closed; elevators, cashiers, electricity, Wi-Fi, air-conditioning, heating, sound, seating, walk-paths and stairs, vendors--food and accessories, security, camera & video, HDTV and a HD-JUMBOTRON, housing for teams and workers/staff, office space, etc, etc, etc... Places that are amazing to behold in their construction and if you're part of the management of the construction at any level or you have to be THE manager that keeps the building going once it's done you will find out very soon that a lot of what he says is utter rubbish; especially if you are the engineer that designed this Behemoth with every life in mind so that they would NOT be die to some kind of mental lapse; this is a job (like no other really) that has a HUGE amount of pressure on it and ALL THAT you have to rely on is: Physics (and that little brain of yours + a good calculator and drafting tools ). Does he have even any idea of how incredibly smart these people are, then he comes in and mocks Einstein like he's just this buffoon that of course NEVER thought of the COMPLETELY OBVIOUS stuff. He would NEVER do that; Einstein made people that build the greatest structures on Earth look like idiot children! I'm guessing that was skipped in seminary!? That little thing he thinks is so utterly useless to talk about in the grand scheme of things is so vitally important to everything he does EVERY day (and I really wonder if he knows HOW MUCH we depend on Science and it's discoveries--I mean your whole house would basically disappear without the inventions, it's a complete joke and I really do think he takes it for granted.

It's hard to EVER have a conversation with someone that loves their God SO MUCH they have their OWN God complex! I refuse to talk to a brick wall I'm not a damn mad man!

Anyway, thanks again.

BLAARGH!!! It just gets frustrating, especially when they don't seem to be trolls--so ignore it is.

It was a sincere question. The serious answer is that the theory of gravity is not simple and is not easy to prove.

Yet you accept it without question.

Likewise, maybe climate science, which is also not simple and not easy to prove, may have more to offer than you think. There is alot more known about clouds, to use your example, than you seem to appreciate. >> ^coolhund:

>> ^longde:
General Relativity is simple?
>> ^coolhund:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Gravity is a theory too, STFU.
kthanksbai.
>> ^coolhund:
It is NOWHERE near being a fact. Its a fucking theory and one that is very wobbly at that if you actually open your eyes objectively.


Yeah, a theory thats easily proven because its very simple.

Trying to be a smartass now, huh? That only helps my cause.
You know exactly what I meant.
Well, I see, ignorance as usual.

>> ^longde:

General Relativity is simple?
>> ^coolhund:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Gravity is a theory too, STFU.
kthanksbai.
>> ^coolhund:
It is NOWHERE near being a fact. Its a fucking theory and one that is very wobbly at that if you actually open your eyes objectively.


Yeah, a theory thats easily proven because its very simple.


Trying to be a smartass now, huh? That only helps my cause.
You know exactly what I meant.
Well, I see, ignorance as usual. Im just waiting for you to get out the drawers.

General Relativity is simple?
>> ^coolhund:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Gravity is a theory too, STFU.
kthanksbai.
>> ^coolhund:
It is NOWHERE near being a fact. Its a fucking theory and one that is very wobbly at that if you actually open your eyes objectively.


Yeah, a theory thats easily proven because its very simple.

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^soulmonarch:
... the same cannot be said of time travelers. (i.e. If it was possible, we would have already met them, etc.)

Assuming our species survives long enough to develop it, which is improbable, imho. If you believe that the development of time travel is inevitable (if it is possible), then the lack of visitors from the future may simply mean we are doomed, at least in this plane of the brane.
The Fermi Paradox doesn't disprove anything, nor was it meant to.


I kind of like the sci-fi idea that we make a time machine in some distant future. The time travel event works, but also collapses to universe down to a singularity. Time time travel event works, however, and sends our time traveler back to the original singularity causing a massive disturbance, which causes the singularity to erupt. The end of time causing the start of time, to end all over again. All this completely consistent with the current understanding of general relativity.

>> ^Fade:

Nothing in the laws of physics...except that you can't physically travel through time, yes.
Time is only this moment. There is no future or past to travel to.


Not according to some elements of General Relativity. Meaning, some would have it that the past, future and present have all already happened and just exist in a different dimension, call it the Z' axis. When Kurt Gödel wasn't destroying the foundations of logical positivism, he devised a time travel tabulation called the Gödel metric which allowed for curves in space time that one might be able to use some variant of what we all know as time travel. It is all theory, of course, and most of the theoretical methods for invoking time travel require a device of infinite size, or arranging matter in such a way as to destroy your time travel machine as it becomes a singularity...oops. Time is hardly understood really. We don't really know what it is when we talk about time, and by we, I mean everyone! Is time a particle, is it a matter or energy of sorts, is it conserved, how is it created if it is a substance of a sort? Is the apparent nature of moments of time in our minds indicative to "it's" nature, or just an arrangements of information in our mind...could some other mind have a very different idea of time? If so, how real is our notion of time, as it would appear that forward moving time would not be objectively real in that case. The debate on time travel, as far as I can see, isn't over...but mostly because we don't even know what time actually is! </rant of one of my favorite subjects!>

Time to go eat...

Edit (wanted to add that some hold that rats memorize events in reverse! What I mean is when they go through a maze, they remember coming out of the maze first, and going in last! AMAZINGLY DIFFERENT WORLD! As such, a rat has a much, much different idea of the "flow" of time as a forward flow of moments, his time jumps from now, to the then that was near to the then that was far and back to the "now" which will become another then that was near, then a then that was far...a jambalaya that we would have no idea how to make since of lineally, but it works so well for rats that they are one of natures most sucessfull pests.)

Using general relativity to defend the flat earth theory? Wow, that's just brilliant!

But massive particles would still be prohibited from traveling faster than the speed of light. It's only the particles with imaginary mass that could travel faster, and they would still fit into the framework of special and general relativity.

Unless we at the same time can show that the neutrinos have non-complex mass. Then it could get really hairy. But I wouldn't bet my house on it.

In reply to this comment by juliovega914:
An exaggeration, yes, but not a terribly big one. Most of the standard theory today is based on the bricks of special and general relativity. For us to have to rethink the laws restricting mass from traveling over the speed of light, we really would need to rethink physics from there all the way back up, which really leaves no physical theories safe all the way back to Newtonian physics. In short, I cant wait to see how this pans out.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
Oh, it would definitely be groundbreaking. One of the biggest discoveries in physics to date. But to say that we would have to restart physics is an exaggeration.

In reply to this comment by juliovega914:
I'm pretty sure negative mass would still result in complex energy, because the Lorentz transformation factor would still be proportional to 1/i or -i. Complex mass, however, would allow for the energy to be real (which has been theorized as being possible), but that introduces a whole new problem of trying to conceptualize complex mass.

And on a side note, the first ever physical observation of nonpostive/nonreal mass would be groundbreaking in its own right.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
The thing is, we don't know the mass of the neutrino. If it has a tachyonic nature, i.e. negative mass squared, it could break Lorentz symmetry while still satisfying Einstein's equations.

>> ^juliovega914:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^juliovega914:
If this measurement turns out to be true, we basically have to restart physics.

Again, not necessarily. It would be a ground breaking discovery and would certainly raise a lot of questions...but then I did perhaps one of the most brain melting experiments with results that appear to contradict theory and common sense when I was 14 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

No, it would be a HUGE discovery! One of the biggest ever! and it would completely redefine our modern theory!
If a massive particle moves faster than the speed of light, that means the Lorentz factor for calculating the energy of the particle will be complex! (gamma = c/squrt(c^2-v^2), for v>c, gamma is complex). Do any of you have any fucking idea what that means?
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/veltran.html
for those of you who dont know wtf I am talking about)