My FTL Challenge

[AV1611VET]

My guess is sensational, and ignorant, reason. My feeling is that the producer is more interesting in earning money by manufacture sensational "news" where there is none rather than producing accurate science.

You ... you mean a science channel would do that?

Wouldn't some watchdog organization expose it as junk science?

 

[AV1611VET]

You wont be able to tell if it did.

Hmmm.

What if God spoke from Heaven, and we heard it on Earth in real time?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Do things move faster than light?

Not in the ordinary sense.

It was put out by the Science Channel.

The History Channel showed a documentary called 'Bigfoot Captured'.

 

[AV1611VET]

If I call myself a doctor, does that make me a doctor?

No. But why would you?

(Popular science is not science, but entertainment).

I must have missed the adjective.

All I see is "science channel;" not "popular science channel."

Calling it a lie is a strong word, but it is misleading and ignorant.

Are you sure?

After all, didn't you just say that if something moved ftl, we wouldn't be able to tell?

 

[SkyWriting]

Thoughts?

You probably need the power of a black hole onboard to warp space to that extent.
And that would require the power of a second black hole to counter that energy.

If you watch any fantasy stories of warp drive, they never hint on
the amount of power and the distortion it would require to warp space.
People get car sick on a curvey road. So traveling with a warp drive
would be like floating in a sea of partly digested stomach contents.
But I guess we have suits to contain that.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is click bait nonsense.

May I ask how you know this?

Redshift is a measurement determined from the spectrum of galaxies.

Okay? so?

 

[Nithavela]

No. But why would you?I must have missed the adjective.

All I see is "science channel;" not "popular science channel."Are you sure?

After all, didn't you just say that if something moved ftl, we wouldn't be able to tell?

What's your real point?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's sort of worse than that. Since this starts with one of the deep fields (not sure which one) the redshifts are measured with broad-band photometry and not even spectroscopy. (Most of the objects in such fields are faint enough to require reallllly long exposures to measure if it's even possible at all.)

You guys sound like pwning this video is a piece of cake.

This makes me suspicious.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because nothing does.

Some things just appear to travel faster than light because of observation errors.

It's like measuring a horse with a broken speed laser that shows 10 times the actual speed and then making a documentary about a miracle horse that could race a sportscar.

Now he's using faulty equipment, is he?

Hmmm.

 

[SkyWriting]

Do things move faster than light?

It's very hard to watch. And hard to measure accurately.

 

[AV1611VET]

Isn't the science channel the one that hosts a pawn shop owner in his most well-liked shows?

Beats me.

I'm just a koine. A plebeian. A commoner.

If something passes itself off as science, and talks like they did in the video, why wouldn't I believe it.

That is, as long as it doesn't contradict the Bible.

And I've already shown a verse or two about sound traveling ftl.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Thoughts?

In theory nothing can travel faster than light however it is still a theory. We know numbers are endless. Be blessed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not in the ordinary sense.

Hmmm.

The History Channel showed a documentary called 'Bigfoot Captured'.

This calls itself the Science Channel.

 

[sjastro]

May I ask how you know this?Okay? so?

Try reading the comments and links presented in this thread.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It was put out by the Science Channel.

Sigh. I wasn't aware that the "Science Channel" had also fallen into the woo and distortion "science" media game. But, they are owned by Discovery, Inc. whose other channels (Discovery, TLC) are know to have this problem as well. (They don't on the History channel, but the do own "OWN" whose founder is one of the greatest villains of woo and distorted facts in modern American mass media history.)

The whole clip is *VERY* deceptively edited and narrated. They *could* have talked about the cool, and weird fact of superluminal recession velocities from space expansion starting from the first person (and the Hubble observation), but instead (and under weird musical cues) they stopped talking to astronomers and started talking to SF authors, future technologists, SETI people, before ending with a physicist talking about a potential scheme for FTL space craft.

There is nothing wrong with speculating about future technologies or looking for aliens or the very theoretical proposals for possible FTL drives, but the editing made it look like the HST observations showed something unexpected and unexplained and that alien FTL craft were a possible explanation. They are not. We know exactly why the recession velocities are faster than the speed of light (see sjastro's posts here and in other threads) and we've know that since before the HST was even launched. These aren't unexplained phenomena at all.

If Science had goon squads, surely we would send one to the Science channel with clubs and brass knuckles for this wretched distortion. Alas, we don't have enforcers. (That's probably a good thing, it would go against the scientific ethos.)

 

[AV1611VET]

What's your real point?

Science can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's very hard to watch. And hard to measure accurately.

The narrator and those guys in the video didn't seem to have any problem.

 

[AV1611VET]

In theory nothing can travel faster than light ...

The video disagrees.

 

[In situ]

You ... you mean a science channel would do that?

There nothing exceptional in the statement that a commercial organization need to prioterize commercial interest. Rather you can take it for granted.

Wouldn't some watchdog organization expose it as junk science?

I dunno. Maybe some already have - just like we are refuting it here and now.

 

[essentialsaltes]

This calls itself the Science Channel.

It's a commercial product of the Discovery mass media company. It's just a name for PR purposes, like 'creation science'.

Pseudoscience can take a hike.