'Speed of Gravity'

Nothing can be faster than the speed of light, but there is one exception to this rule.

Space.

Space at distance x expands faster then the speed of light, and therefore the light from that distance will never reach us.

Where x = a distance so for away that we cannot see it (the light has never reached us since the creation of the universe, and never will since the space expands so fast that the speed of light cannot catch up)

Saw this on a documentary recently. The Universe - Light Speed, quite interesting. PM me if you want link to video.

Nothing can be faster than the speed of light, but there is one exception to this rule.

Space.

Space at distance x expands faster then the speed of light, and therefore the light from that distance will never reach us.

Where x = a distance so for away that we cannot see it (the light has never reached us since the creation of the universe, and never will since the space expands so fast that the speed of light cannot catch up)

Saw this on a documentary recently. The Universe - Light Speed, quite interesting. PM me if you want link to video.

lets be realistic to a minute, how would a sun dissapear that spontaneously?

We're talking theoretically here. Of course its not actually gonna happen, but we can work out what would happen if it did. Einstein did it, and it was proved later on.

^In your opinion. But in reality, nothing can be proved or disproved. Even in mathematics, seeing as we assume the laws of logic to be correct.

So, in this case, by 'proved' I mean 'supported by strong evidence', if you're gonna be picky.

Sorry, you lost me on word five.


Nah, only kidding. I see what you mean, but I don't understand fully why it can't be applied to science. Surely you have axioms about science such as 'What I observe is an accurate representation of what is actually happening' then you can prove a theory within those axioms? (e.g. I observe this effect occuring. This could only occur if x happened. Therefore x must be true.) Or maybe I misunderstand your point.

Please explain to me how the human body works.
Remember, you can not open up the body without creating a blackhole.

You just spent several billion to create an X-Ray machine that can view a fuzzy picture after several years of taking different pictures of random samples of people.

A person lives for less than a thousandth of a second.

Now that is the problem for trying to work out what a particle is....

I get you're trying to make some sort of rhetorical point, but i'm ****** if I know what the hell you're on about...

Upon a set of axioms, it is absolute truth that if you follows the rules governed by those axioms, any result established is truth within those axioms, which is the essence of proof.

You can hardly axiomitise science / physical science.

So what are the postulates of relativity? They are axioms, i.e. something that is taken as true and everything else flows from them.

Just like QM, a set of axioms that tell you how wavefunctions relate to physical observables, then you go and find the said wavefunctions and make predictions.

Observations are not subjective, they are objective. The only subjectivity introduced is through how they are interpreted and you make a fair point about that (although I don't fully understand what you're getting at). Still, I think the difference is subtle at best.

The approach may be different, but I believe that both are valid 'proofs'. Of course, scientific proof wouldn't count as mathematical proof in most cases...

To some extent this whole argument is void though until we define what proof is.