There are loads of evidence that supports it. Do you have any that suggest otherwise?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is telepathy scientifically possible?
- Thread starter Greasyman
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There are loads of evidence that supports it. Do you have any that suggest otherwise?
It wouldn't be scientifically correct to say it's "impossible." A more accurate wording would be "it's impossible according to the theory of general relativity which is the best theory we currently have that describes how the universe operates at non-quantum scales." But yeah, conversational shorthand of that would be "FTL is impossible."
Just because we haven't attained it yet? People wanted to close the patent office in 1920 because there was nothing else that could be invented....
Bla bla bla time stops. Time is relative.
----------
Yes, look up.
I was a PhD student at a certain university when it had an 'engineering anomolies' lab. Because the psychology department had to collaborate with these guys, we occasionally had a seminar by them. The end result was inevitably a stunned silence,. The people doing this research were earnest, but true believers. Thus, they cherry-picked their results, they engaged in biased interpretation, they used dodgy statistics, and it seemed to me they put themselves into a huge conflict of interest (trying to establish the existence of psi phenomena, on which their job depended). Trust me, there is not a shred of reliable evidence for telepathy (in spite of the claims by some), and there is plenty of evidence against it. Quite apart from anything, most physical effects dissipate with distance in contrast to how telepathy supposedly works.
If you have a chance, watch the movie "The men who stared at goats" to get an idea of what the research was like (OK, the movie exaggerates, but I recognized some of the work they talk about in the movie). Utterly whacky... And yes, the military was truly interested for awhile because some idiot believed a Russian experiment with rabbits (I doubt a rabbit is self-aware, let alone aware of the thoughts of other rabbits. I think it far more likely the Russians played a clever rouse to get the US to waste research money).
Last edited:
No there isn't
Science and its theories are based on observations. There has been nothing to suggest and subsequently support that you can go faster than the speed of light.
I'm looking up, and aside from seeing my ceiling, there is nothing to indicate that the laws of physics have been repealed, and it is still impossible to exceed the speed of light.
BTW: you asked "Who said". I believe the first to make the assertion was some dope named Einsticker, or Einstone, or something like that. You could look it up...
This would have to be scaled down greatly but look at the composition of an atom. Lets say we are the electrons, nuclei remains in the center with the electrons revolving closely around it. Since its scaled and infinitely small, who's to say those electrons aren't moving at the speed of light, scaled? When these atoms collide, nuclear fission is achieved. What does that say? These are moving extremely quickly. Not just the atoms themselves in a space, but materials within the atom. Put it into perspective.
I thought as an object approached the speed of light it would become infinitely heavy and therefore it would require infinitely more energy to get the object to accelerate (and, no, I have never studied physics ). So I thought that the speed of light was an absolute barrier per se, but that the problem was the energy required. Or do I misunderstand?
). So I thought that the speed of light was an absolute barrier per se, but that the problem was the energy required. Or do I misunderstand?I'm looking up, and aside from seeing my ceiling, there is nothing to indicate that the laws of physics have been repealed, and it is still impossible to exceed the speed of light.
BTW: you asked "Who said". I believe the first to make the assertion was some dope named Einsticker, or Einstone, or something like that. You could look it up...
Science has been proven wrong many times.
----------
I thought as an object approached the speed of light it would become infinitely heavy and therefore it would require infinitely more energy to get the object to accelerate (and, no, I have never studied physics
Nuclear fission = infinite (but uncontrollable) energy.
Not sure what I just read but....couple of points
1) Colliding atoms does not mean nuclear fission
2) Projects like the LHC have not found any observational evidence to support anything faster than speed of light
3) What does speed of light scaled have anything to do with going faster than speed of light?
I am not sure what i am suppose to be putting into perspective in short
And? Where is the proof this is wrong?
----------
What you quoted is not a description of fission, nor is it infinite energy....nor is it uncontrollable.....What do you think nuclear power plants are?
In general science advances by what we hope is a self-correcting process. We only learn when we are wrong and a new theory is required.
If there was an infinite supply of fissionable material. There isn't.
Nuclear fission in an uncontrollable environment. Say, when a bomb is dropped and nuclear fission begins.
----------
[kidding]Our young friend's latest business plan?
B
Was thinking about it lol
You asked "Who said so" and so I replied with the answer: the laws of physics and in particular, some guy's theory of General Relativity. That's who said.
The above quote, that you wrote, is inconsistent. Fission is definitely controllable and is definitely finite, not infinite.
Physics has been proven wrong before too....
----------
Explain the radiation aftermath.
I don't think anyone is arguing that point. But until we discover or invent something that goes faster than 186,000 miles per second, this is a law that will stand indefinitely.
Don't give in, Mate.
Stick to your guns!
In your world, I'm sure everything you say is absolutely true!
And your world is a much more interesting and fun place than reality.
The rest of us benighted souls will just have to settle for the real world.
Tant pis...
Example?
The area of utility of a particular theory may change, but in general few theories are proven wrong, only enhanced.
For example, Newtonian mechanics isn't wrong, it just applies under most everyday circumstances and other theories apply in other cases like for the very small or the very large. So we know it is incomplete, but that does not make it wrong.
Tant pis...
Why are you talking about my French Aunt's bathroom habits?
B