Recent content by JordanL

Ah, alright. I just went back and reread how this thread began: Bjarne: The answer is yes, the laws of nature would be found the same in all reference frames. However, the measurements taken of your surroundings, and thus your inputs into your equations, would be different. Because the...

Ah, but the math does not accept t = 0. :) I didn't mean to state that as a fact. It is an interpretation of t = 0... that is, the singularity concept. You're right though. So long as spacetime has existed, the Universe has not been a single point.

I think it's more accurate to term it "metaverse" personally, but to each their own. In a very real way, the Big Bang represents a time where all the information about everything that we can see was condensed to a single point and normalized. We don't know anything about "before" that because...

Er... no... You repeat it in the same way, and use different/better instrumentation to reduce systematic errors. But you conduct it the same. If you conduct it differently, you don't know if your results are relevant.

Speed is a measure of distance over time. As both distance AND time are different in the two frames, the speed is different as well. (Also, a minor point, but I believe you mean velocity. Speed is different from velocity in physics.)

As has been stated MANY times in this thread, Sagnac effects were already accounted for.

It seems that what mark_gg is positing, is that SR is only useful for predicting how other reference frames will perceive you. If you do not care about any reference frame at any time except for the one you are currently in, then you can travel arbitrarily "fast" from your own perspective...

All this example shows is that the same measurement if we attempt it from different reference frames will yield different results, which is rather the point of them, isn't it? Distances, speeds and times are not absolute, they are relative... which is why it is called relativity. You cannot say...

In other words, globally there is local consistency, at the cost of locally there being global consistency? EDIT: Actually, consistency is the wrong word. What I suppose I meant was that globally there is local continuity of physical laws, instead of locally there being global continuity...

I believe someone else already asked this question. The answer that was given is that tachyons decrease in energy as they increase in speed. Using the neutrinos detected from the referenced supernova, were they tachyonic, the neutrinos should have been traveling even faster than the ones CERN is...

Anyone suggesting that simply adjusting the "c" constant will fix things needs to explain how 150 years of mathematical and physics equations didn't detect the discrepancy. Looking to an adjustment to c as the answer to this data, if correct, is... creative. It is not borne out of a...

So then c would be the "speed limit", and the speed of light would be something slightly less... This still doesn't explain why photons have the same speed no matter your reference point.

It should be noted: they performed the experiment 15,000 times before reporting results, and the calculation error on their measurement is said to be +/- 10ns, or one-sixth the differential. I'm not sure what to think until the experiment is repeated elsewhere, but it seems CERN didn't make...

You find it to be a fuzzy understanding, but in concluding that it is fuzzy, you assign varying degrees of truth or falsity to them. How could one do so with things that do not exist? Things. In the absence of discreteness within the things of our Universe, there would be no such thing as truth...

It's my understanding that the Big Bang, or rather the point where the Universe began, does not represent an absolute beginning in the sense that most people think of it as. It represents a point in the timeline we share where all information about what was before it was normalized into a single...