Theory verses Law; and Questioning Accepted Facts

Theory verses Law; and Questioning Accepted Facts

For my rhetorical analysis idea I will start off by asking a rhetorical question. What moves faster than light? Nothing right? I heard that some smart guy named Albert Einstein proved that a particle of light is the fastest possible speed anything can go. Modern science may have just found contradicting evidence. “Was Einstein Wrong”, in time magazine states “a team of European scientists has reportedly clocked a flock of subatomic particles called neutrinos moving at just a shade over the speed of light. If the Europeans are right, Einstein was not just wrong but almost clueless. The implications could be huge. Particles that move faster than light are essentially moving backwards in time, which could make the phrase cause and effect obsolete”. This is enough evidence if proven true to rewrite all the text books and to throw scientists off their feet. My rhetorical analysis will use this article to describe the differences in the definition of “laws” and “theories” in the scientific world and if this new finding could possibly be true. Einstein’s speed of light law is the perfect case point example of how the world accepted it as a fact and now could become fiction. This article also touches on the controversy in the scientific world about how much evidence is needed until a theory becomes a law.