genuineoriginal
New member
John 11:9 9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. |
Jesus said there are twelve hours from sunrise to sunset.
Argument supporting existence of a God
- Thread starter SaintAndrew
- Start date
- Status
Jesus said there are twelve hours from sunrise to sunset.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
:thumb:
i wonder how far back that can be traced ....... wiki sez 24the century bc, ancient egyptians
Regardless, the point is that it travels. The notion that it doesn't travel is simply false.
Further, the variation in the measurments of c are within a margin of error depending on the meathod used. But I have heard about good evidence that c is decaying. Although no such decay can possibly be detected any longer because of the way units of measure are now defined with c as an inherent part of the definition. A meter, for example, is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1 / 299,792,458 seconds. A second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom (Subatomic systems are subject to relativistic effects which would effect the measured speed of light).
genuineoriginal
New member
I have never claimed that light doesn't travel.
I have only claimed that it is not true that nothing can travel faster than the currently measured speed of light in a vacuum.
Perhaps but quantum entanglement does not.
Once again, the idea is that the particles somehow exist in two places at once. There is nothing traveling and thus no speed limit is broken.
Whether or not I understand what's happening with quantum entanglement doesn't mean I don't understand why light cannot travel faster than it does nor can anything else.
You don't have to drop it if you don't want to but you're just flatly wrong and anyone who understands the science even a little bit not only is going to know you're wrong but is going to sort of be laughing at you.
You do what you want.
It has been DIRECTLY MEASURED! It is not merely theoretical or mathematically derived. Once again, it has been directly measured and done so in a whole variety of ways. They bounce lasers off mirrors on the Moon. They've bounced microwaves off the surface of Venus. They send data back and forth between space probes on or at several planets and even beyond the solar system. Even the communications between Houston and the Apollo missions had delays related to the speed of light (radio waves). And there are perhaps dozens of other ways that the speed of light as been directly measured over literally hundreds of years. It is very simply not a mere mathematical constant or theoretical construct.
No kidding.
This is something of a tautology. Light IS a wave propagation. The speed of that wave has nothing to do with the wave itself.
PLEASE WATCH THAT VIDEO I POSTED!!!
PLEASE!
Clete
genuineoriginal
New member
Wow, everyone that understood Newtonian physics knew Einstein was wrong and laughed at him.
You are confused over the difference between the speed that light travels in a vacuum and the mere mathematical constant called the "speed of light" that is used in the mathematical formulas.
Just like radiometric dating proves the age of the earth? I don't consider EM waves to be same as light other than color.
Radiometric dating now? What was OP again? :chuckle:
You're comparing yourself to Einstein?
Now, even I'm laughing at you.
The lengths people go to in order to cling to needlessly, worthlessly incorrect notions blows my mind.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Clete
What?
No one have ever used radiometric dating to get an age for the Earth - no one - ever.
And if you really meant to draw a parallel to radiometric dating in general and meant to imply that it is pseudoscience then, while I might agree with that to a certain extent, it would still not be analogous to the way the speed of light has been physically measured. Measuring the speed of light is only difficult because it is so fast and the distances involved in measuring it are vast or else the equipment used must be very precise and sensitive. The idea, however is the exact same as that used by the speedometer in your car. Distance / time = speed. There's nothing pseudoscientific about it.
On what basis?
Let me guess? You need to do so in order to flippantly discount the noticeable delay in radio communications.
Whether you consider visible light to be electromagnetic waves or not has no effect on reality. The fact is that electromagnetic waves that we can see can be and are generating by the exact same type of equipment that is used to produce everything from x-rays to AM/FM radio signals and microwaves. The primary difference is the amount of energy used and the manufacture and configuration of the emitters.
Do you have a digital camera? There isn't a digital camera sensor in existence that cannot detect electromagnetic waves beyond the visible spectrum. They have to put IR cut filters in the cameras to make them usable for normal daylight photography. A lot of people who do astrophotography spend a lot of money having people take those filters out so that they can get better images of emission nebulae. The point being that the same sensor the detects visible light also detects non-phisible light and it does so for the same reason which has everything to do with the photoelectric effect and thus electromagnetism.
Further, the speed of light has been physically measured using regular old, run of the mill, visible light. It travels at the exact same speed as every other sort of light.
The bottom line is that light, whether visible or otherwise, definitely travels at a definite, detectable speed and you are flatly wrong - and for what? What benefit is there to denying well established facts? I mean, I'm all for being skeptical about things when there's good reason to be unconvinced but what in the world is there to be unconvinced about?
No, that would still work with my beliefs. The mirror in the video could easily introduced the delay being a material object. But I did like the video.
Last edited:
I think GO has a point. The mathematical relationship between energy, mass and "c" is not a perfect reflection of reality (even ignoring the approximations).
What?
This is just not so! What in the world are you guys talking about?
Have you ever heard of an atomic bomb? The reason those weapons were ever even attempted is because of Einstein's theories. Last time I checked, they succeeded in making one or two of them.
Any suggestions on how they have the faintest idea how much energy these bombs are going to produce?
I can tell you how! They know exactly how much energy is going to be produced because of E=mc^2 and for no other reason - period.
Are there variables in the system that might through their calculations off by some tiny percentage? Of course! We don't live in a laboratory but that doesn't mean that the formulas don't work. In fact, its when they are wildly off when we learn something. When they first tested the Castle Bravo bomb at Bikini Atol it yielded a MUCH bigger punch than they expected because they thought the Lithium 7 in their fission material would be inert. Well it wasn't and so the bomb yielded something like 15 Megatons instead of the expected 6 megatons. The point being that the 15 megatons is just what it should have yielded given the amount of material that was turned into energy based solely on E=mc^2.
Not only that but what do you think, that it's just a happy coincidence that the measured speed of light is within the margin of error of the measuring devise(s) of what the theoretical value should be?
Come on now! Where oh where is the profit in denying such things? If you're going to argue against something the scientific community believes why not pick something that actually has something real to debate? Why not pick something that they clearly don't have correct or at least something that it's reasonable to suggest that they don't have correct? If you're going to argue against Einstein, then argue against his definition of time. If you're going to argue against modern cosmology, then debate whether or not electricity can or cannot effect systems on astronomical scales (which most scientists deny - by the way). If you want to throw doubt on a popular scientific theory then pick on the ones that cannot be tested, like String Theory. Just, whatever you do, don't go around denying things that we absolutely know for a fact are true! The Earth is round, apples fall to the ground, the Moon orbits the Earth which orbits the Sun and the speed of light is precisely 299,792,458 meters per second.
Clete
If that were the case then it wouldn't matter where you put the mirror.
The guy doing the experiment "zeroed" out his measuring devise by placing a mirror up close to the emitter. What he actually was measuring was the difference in travel time between the zeroing mirror position and the position of the mirror across the room. If it was the mirror causing the effect, the difference would be zero.
The difference wasn't zero. In fact, it just happened, by total luck and happenstance I'm sure, to be just exactly what it should have been according to, not only the theoretical value of c but also the value of c measured in countless other ways by hundreds of other people over decades of time.
Clete
P.S. I do want to add that you're objection here was actually scientifically minded and you should be commended for at least that much. Looking for potential points of error or searching for alternative causes for the observed effect is a totally legitimate and scientific thing to do. But so is allowing your mind to be persuaded that a notion you've held to is, in fact, wrong. Don't be afraid of reality. No true worldview is ever in conflict with it.
Last edited:
Ideas can succeed with approximations. That a theory is useful is no proof that it is perfect.
What if there was a formula that worked better?
Oh I am not suggesting that Einstein's theories are perfect. But Einstein didn't come up with the speed of light and the speed of light is not a theory, nor is it dependent upon any other theory. It has been directly measured. It's no more of a theory than is the distance to the Moon or the shape of the Earth.
You got one in mind?
Even if you did, it wouldn't alter the value of c. The speed of light is not theoretical. As I keep saying, it has been directly measured.
It doesn't sound like we disagree on anything. Light speed can be measured and e=mc2 is an approximation of it.
E=mc^2 is not an aproximation of anything, least of all the speed of light. The speed of light is a constant used in the formula but it does not define what that constant is equal to.
Having said that, we are clearly more in agreement than not. My entire point about the speed of light is that it isn't merely a mathematical construct and that it definitely does travel, neither of which you really disagree with - I don't think.
- Status