OOH NO .......... NOW WHAT EINSTEIN ?

I think it’s an aberation in the measuring tools.

This said I have read many times that the relativity law needs some tweeking in light of recent discoveries.

This is way cool~!!

It’s an axiom in all genuine discussions of any of the so called scientific facts that they are in fact not facts. They are theories that have stood the test of time – - – but the time they have been tested has been woefully short.

Not one single scientific theory has been around for anything approximating geologic time.
Precious few have even been around for a lousy century.
So it stands to reason that there is ooodles of room to re-think the presumptions of yesterday. All we need are fresh contrary observations.

Gravity is merely a theory. The speed if light is not a limitation on nature it is merely the fasted thing that had been measured. We were incapable of detecting anything faster.
But isn’t magnetism faster?
Does anybody even know what magnetism is? I don’t.

-- When the moderator chooses sides, his site sucks.

Interesting, to say the least. I don’t understand even a fraction of what goes on at places like CERN, etc, but it’s awesome to see experiments of that nature being carried out.

-- Dan, Rochester, NY

I read that article earlier and it really is interesting. It’s always interesting to see what comes of all the experiments and how things change. However, it’s only interesting. My life won’t change much. Even if the speed of light is determined to be only the second fastest thing measured, it’s still faster than anything I can deal with. Practicle application…poo

-- Gary, DeKalb Texas only 4 miles from the mill

Anyone who thought the speed of light was the fasting thing in the universe never opened their wallet in front of a teenager and watched the money fly out.

-- Charlie M. "Woodworking - patience = firewood"

I am reading a book on anti-gravity…..just cannot put it down!

-- Rowdy in Kechi, Kansas

haha rowdy. that was funny!! :)

-- Hey you dang woodchucks, quit chucking my wood!!!!

I read this earlier and am fascinated by the idea. I am looking forward to hearing the results of the verification.

-- I was walking down the street, something caught my eye, and dragged it 15 feet.

The next thing you know, they are going to find out that we blondes are smarter than the average person!

Hummmm. . . You never know! :)

Sheila

-- Contributing Editor, Creative Woodworks and Crafts, Sheila Landry Designs http://www.sheilalandrydesigns.com "Knowledge is Power"

^huge lol, Shelia!

-- My dad and I built a 65 chev pick up.I killed trannys in that thing for some reason-Hog

No, dust will not be falling upward.

There is a lot of confusion as to the meanings of words “fact” and “theory” that lead to various rhetorical fallacies. Many falsely believe that fact means “truth” and theory means “speculation” or use all of the above interchangeably leading to even more misunderstanding.

Scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast to theory, which explains and interprets facts. This is all there is to it. Theory can be refuted or adapted to explain newly discovered facts.

For example:
1) Light traveling at around 300000 km/sec is a fact. Nothing can exceed the speed of 300000 km/sec is a theory. (Note: it is called a theory of relativity).
2) Apple falling on the Newton’s head is a fact (OK it would be hard to verify since the subject is dead). Gravity is the force behind it is a theory.

Whatever the scientists at CERN discover will not refute facts, but may refine or refute theories.

No reputable scientist (to my knowledge) ever stated that 300000 km/sec is a limit to anything that moves is a fact. This notion is a product of popular culture.

Nicely put, Viktor! I agree. But let me offer this challenge. Can you make an observation statement that is not theoretically bound, i.e., can you state a fact without reliance upon some theoretical framework that makes sense of that fact?

By the way, at least for me, this is what makes this potential discovery so interesting.

Pierce85, probably not. You probably can’t avoid some level of reliance on theories while obtaining other (unrelated) new facts. If I understand your question correctly. The keys thought are “objective” (independent of the observer) and “verifiable”.
I guess I was responding to a smirk, commonly observed when a theory falls, that the science is no good, yada, yada, yada… That’s the whole point! It is a system based on self improvement. It is when the theories don’t change we are in trouble.

”can you state a fact without reliance upon some theoretical framework that makes sense of that fact?”

Of course you can.
It all depends on the standards the hearer uses.
If it’s good enough for them that because you said it that it must be so then, from their subjective perspective it is fact. So when you say that there are elves in the forest, it is fact.

If on the other hand they need things with words like empirical and peer reviewed attached to it you will need to get someone else, whom the hearer respects ( a subjective perspective if I ever saw one) to concur and maybe a photograph or other evidentiary material that convincingly reveals the elves in question.

It’s easy to fall into the trap that science is some how always going to give us correct answers.
But not terribly long ago it was a gathering scientific fact that you could tell a person’s predispositions toward honesty, integrity, diligence, obedience, and other personality traits just by feeling the shape of their skull.
Science evolves and the populist notion that it’s done evolving flies in the face of the scientific model.

-- When the moderator chooses sides, his site sucks.

”If it’s good enough for them that because you said it that it must be so then, from their subjective perspective it is fact. So when you say that there are elves in the forest, it is fact.”

Except it will not be a fact in scientific sense by definition (I believe pierce85 was talking about scientific facts). Scientific fact has to be objective i.e. independent of the observer. You have to be able to find an independent party to verify it.