Register to reply

Why do we keep saying its impossible?

by Bunting
Tags: impossible
Share this thread:
wimms
#19
Apr24-03, 12:57 AM
P: 473
Right. Integral, please don't feel offended. Most people very highly respect current science and believe all that is generally accepted, including impossible FTL. The hope remains that this is not the end, new developments will reveal other new ways to do it.
Reminds me doors with "Pull" sign on them - if you attack them head on, you might get hurt..
Integral
#20
Apr24-03, 04:53 AM
Mentor
Integral's Avatar
P: 7,314
Not to worry, I am not offended, I simply would like to see more effort to understand the lessons modern Physics has to offer, and fewer dreams of what is essentially science fiction.

It seems that the universe has construted inpenatrable barriers, at least according to our current understanding. This does not mean that physicts simply accept this and make no further efforts.

What does the future hold? While it is impossible to say for sure, I'll bet that the speed of light barrier is real. Mankind will continue to extend his understanding of the universe, what we now know will not change, prehaps it will be extended, as Einstein did Newtons laws, but not thrown out.

For me, the biggest lesson we must learn it that the earth and nearby planets is what we have to work with, we must not squander it.
pmb
#21
Apr24-03, 08:54 AM
P: n/a
Originally posted by Bunting
hmmmm, i dont agree with that definition :-/ impossible IS when you cant do something, not when you just feel you cant do it :-/
Then one should never use the term if they mean it literally since its not something that is noticible.

However - I might say that its impossible to fit a full grown whale into a coffe cup. I say it because it seems that its impossible. But I don't know that its impossible. Who knows! Some day a billion years in the future someonne might figure out how to do it without changing the meaning of "full grown whale" and "coffee cup". I don't know. So maybe I should say that its impossible for "me" to do it "today".

But who has time for trying to figure out how to speak litteraly

Pmb
STAii
#22
Apr24-03, 09:41 AM
STAii's Avatar
P: 353
Originally posted by pi-70679
Nowadays, we know that euclidean geomtry cannot always be used especially if not on a plane. Although euclidean geometry is totally true and no one has any doubts about the sum of angles inside a triangle on a plane, it is quite logical that thius doesn't apply on a sphere. Euclid used logic to fimnd his theorems upon which many other math theorems have been built.
Sure, but the euclidian geometry was not wrong, the non-euclidian geometry was just a new science.
Euclid said that the sum up of a triangle's angles is 180o.
When you put three lines onto a sphere, it is not a triangle in the euclidian sense, since the sphere is not a plane, and the lines are not straight.
So, since euclidian geometry was based on logic, it was not wrong, and the non-euclidian geometry is not wrong too, but they are not based on the same definitions, and that is all .

So, now if i define 1+2=4 (in my own new science), and then define 4+2=7 (also in my own science), and then make other definitions, and eventually conclude that 1+2+2=7 (under my new science also), would i be wrong ?
I don't this so, cause according to my definitions along with logic, i am right , if this does not make sense under other definitions (the ones that are well known for the math (1+2=3)), it doesn't mean it is wrong .
pi-70679
#23
Apr24-03, 03:46 PM
pi-70679's Avatar
P: 17
First STAii, if you read what i wrote again, you'll see that i don't say euclidean geometry doesn't apply, i just said that if you go outside flatland, you can have something else and that when space is curved, a shape will be deformed, just like drawing a triangle on an empty baloon and then fill it with air. We are really saying the same thing: sure there are laws that can't be broken, but the laws are sometimes limited to a finite number of conditions. The conditions for euclidean geometry is that the surface must be a plane.
Second, as for the sum of 1+2 = whatever that is not 3, i see what you mean but that argument is really kinda weak because you simplified it quite a bit to make it look obvious, when it really isn't. I would suggest trying to figure out a better one or to rearrange this one in a better way.
CJames
#24
Apr24-03, 04:28 PM
CJames's Avatar
P: 355
Physics is based on the concept that all things obey absolute laws true everywhere in the universe. It therefore follows that certain things have to be impossible, the things that break those laws. We don't necessarily know everything that is possible, but we do know certain things that are impossible. If the earth has the same mass tomorrow, then we can say it is impossible that an object will fall at 2 m/s^2. Special relativity has demonstrated that it is impossible to travel at the speed of light, a theory that has been tested an incredibly large number of times.
Bunting
#25
Apr25-03, 10:24 AM
P: 86
hmmmm, wow, alot of good points :) there is obviously alot of differance between peoples thoughts on this subject :) good to know :P

anyway, i was just thinking while reading some of these replys, that what if what the universe has created isnt the end ? what if humands actually are meant to evolve beyong that of our so called gods? one day we may even find out that rules are not there, and there is only barriers created by our own invention!

As for what integral said about armchair physisists :P Im only an alevel student atm but intend to go onto a PhD in physics definatele (if tis available and viable at the end of my degree!) and this is definatele the sort of stuff i am going to be working on :) so although atm i can only speculate and be an armchair sub-physist! I am doing the best i can :)
jammieg
#26
Apr26-03, 05:50 PM
P: n/a
Because it's a whole lot easier to do the possible rather than the impossible.
STAii
#27
Apr27-03, 08:05 AM
STAii's Avatar
P: 353
Well pi-70679, i see your point.
I think we (somehow) agree on the same opinion.
What i wanted to say is that every science that follows Math and Logic is always right comparing to its foundations (basic definitions and rules), and what you are saying (in my understanding, tell me if i am wrong) is that each science can be limited by its foundations, because different foundations may lead us into different (and maybe more useful, or more general) results.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
What is impossible? General Discussion 60
Trying to find something about eternity engine General Physics 3
Is it impossible ? Classical Physics 4
Not impossible General Physics 13