Why have we ruled out the possibility of finding something faster when we’ve only scratched the surface of space exploration and understanding?
In: 144
I think you’re getting a lot of answers that focus on the “light is the fastest” part and not on the “scratched the surface of space exploration and understanding” part. They’re basically going into detail on the “relativity” model and what it means for light, speed, etc.
But *why* do we believe “relativity” is accurate?
The reason we believe our current “relativity” model with such certainty is that we’ve tested it *incredibly thoroughly*. We’ve done not only an enormous number of tests – we’ve done them across all kinds of contexts and circumstances; with different kinds of equipment; by different teams; by different *nations*, including nations figuratively or even literally at war with each other.
Further, we’ve tested not just one kind of prediction of the model, but every prediction the model can make; the model of “light speed” is deeply linked with our model for gravity, space, time, etc. And every test that we keep doing on every prediction from all those different parts of the model *keeps confirming* the model.
We have not done much *physical* exploration of space. We don’t have probes – much less people – on a lot of different planets. But we can *see* an enormous amount of space – billions of light-years of it; and we’ve been studying all that data coming in, for a long time. Yes, there are lots of things to discover; but we’ve already seen a huge amount of stuff and we have yet to find anything that has overturned, or even given any evidence against, relativity.
Latest Answers