Argument supporting existence of a God

[genuineoriginal]

Just as Pi is PRECISELY equal to the circumference of a circle divided by is diameter, mass converted to joules of energy is PRECISELY equal to the mass in kilograms times 89875517873681764.

89875517873681764 is a mathematical constant that represents a relationship between mass and energy in the same way that pi is a mathematical constant that represents a relationship between the diameter and circumference of a circle.
89875517873681764 is not of a physical limit on the speed of travel of light through a vacuum, even though the number is similar to the measurement of the speed of light in a vacuum.

The meter has been officially defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299792458th of a second. This means that the speed of light is EXACTLY 299792458 meters per second.

That's not a wish, a guess or a theory nor any other sort of approximate value. It cannot get any more exactly accurate than that - period.

It doesn't matter what number you come up with for how fast light travels in a vacuum, it has nothing to do with the value of the mathematical constant c that is falsely called the speed of light.
If a tortoise travels 3.14159 meters per hour in wet sand, we could call pi the speed of tortoise instead, but that would not mean that the speed a tortoise travels in wet sand has anything to do with the relationship between the diameter and circumference of a circle.

 

[Clete]

89875517873681764 is a mathematical constant that represents a relationship between mass and energy in the same way that pi is a mathematical constant that represents a relationship between the diameter and circumference of a circle.
89875517873681764 is not of a physical limit on the speed of travel of light through a vacuum, even though the number is similar to the measurement of the speed of light in a vacuum.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

The speed of light is PRECISELY 299792458 m/s by definiton. That is, based on the definitions of the words "meter" and "second", the speed of light is not close to nor is it estimated to be anything. It is EXACTLY 299792458 m/s - period.

I can go on repeating this until we are all blue in the fact if you want.

It doesn't matter what number you come up with for how fast light travels in a vacuum, it has nothing to do with the value of the mathematical constant c that is falsely called the speed of light.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

If a tortoise travels 3.14159 meters per hour in wet sand, we could call pi the speed of tortoise instead, but that would not mean that the speed a tortoise travels in wet sand has anything to do with the relationship between the diameter and circumference of a circle.

Is that supposed to be an argument?

The speed of a tortoise has nothing to do with circles but π has everything to do with the circumferance of a circle divided by the circle's diameter, in fact, it is precisely defined by it.

The point is the just because π is an irrational number and therefore any numerical expression of it is an aproximation, doesn't mean that π itself is an apoximation nor is the formula used to derive it.

 

[Stripe]

But it isn't pi and not at all anything remotely similar to E=mc^2

Just as Pi is PRECISELY equal to the circumference of a circle divided by is diameter, mass converted to joules of energy is PRECISELY equal to the mass in kilograms times 89875517873681764.

Further more, units of measure are arbitrary and can be defined as anything you want so long as everyone using them is on the same page. As it stands right right, there is no sense whatsoever in which the speed of light in a vacuum is an approximation. The meter has been officially defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299792458th of a second. This means that the speed of light is EXACTLY 299792458 meters per second.

That's not a wish, a guess or a theory nor any other sort of approximate value. It cannot get any more exactly accurate than that - period.

In the world of maths, exactness is possible. However, E is mathematically demonstrable as only approximately equal to mass times the speed of light squared.

It might be possible to find the exact relationship. I'm not sure on that one. Or it might be like pi. Irrational numbers are only able to be expressed exactly by inventing a symbol for them.

In the physical realm, c is, as you say, defined as the speed of light under perfect conditions, so that number can never be found in direct testing, as there will always be a margin of error.

Maths is the only way to define Einstein's equation exactly, but that is yet to be done (as far as I know).

 

[genuineoriginal]

The speed of light is PRECISELY 299792458 m/s by definiton.

So what?
The speed of light has nothing to do with the mathematical constant c in the formula E=mc².

The speed of a tortoise has nothing to do with circles but π has everything to do with the circumferance of a circle divided by the circle's diameter, in fact, it is precisely defined by it.

Exactly.

It doesn't matter whether we call π "the speed of tortoise" or whether we call c "the speed of light".
π and c are both mathematical constants.
Any apparent similarity between the speed of tortoise and π is a mere coincidence.
Any apparent similarity between the speed of light and c is also a mere coincidence.

 

[Stripe]

I remain confused about how light even though it has no mass, nonetheless has momentum, and I'm trying to work it all through cogently.

Apparently, photons have an upper limit on mass they might have of 7×10^-17eV (according to long-distance electro-static measurements).

But maybe they have mass and Newton remains in the picture.

There are alternatives to Einstein out there.

 

[Stripe]

.
So what is the value in consuming all the electricity that computers consume when calculating pi? idk. idk of any application where it's necessary to know pi to anything beyond PPM or PPB (parts per billion) accuracy.

I think there were some computer applications in data protection. And it gives Indians something to do. One of them memorized pi to 70,000 decimal places. :chuckle:

If you like 22/7, celebrate pi day on July 22.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I think there were some computer applications in data protection. And it gives Indians something to do. One of them memorized pi to 70,000 decimal places. :chuckle:

If you like 22/7, celebrate pi day on July 22.

JUL 22 Fun Holiday – Pi Approximation Day Depends on Date Format People in countries that write their dates in the date/ month format celebrate Pi Approximation or Casual Pi Day on 22 July or 22/7. On the other hand, those who write their date in month/ date format celebrate Pi Day on March 14 (3/14 or 3-14) because the first three digits of the date correspond to the first three digits of pi - 3.14.

​

 

[Stripe]

I'm from both.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I'm from both.

You should celebrate τ (tau) day, so you can have twice the π (pi)

 

[Stripe]

You should celebrate τ (tau) day, so you can have twice the π (pi)

I'll do the jokes, thanks.

 

[Tambora]

I know the teaching that c is the speed of light and that no matter can travel faster than the speed of light.
However, that is a false teaching.
c is merely a mathematical constant that is related to the relationship between mass and energy, but how fast light travels in a vacuum has nothing to do with that relationship.
Matter can travel faster than the speed of light.

Hmmm.
I thought that the top speed of light was the fastest (known) of anything.
While it may appear that matter can travel faster than light, it is only because the light slowed down and not that the matter increased speed beyond the speed light could travel.

 

[Truster]

God defined as an intelligent, maximized perfected being.

A.
Something has always existed. a.
Potential for Change has always existed. b.
There is no evidence or reason to suggest that Change is not and has not been, substantially continuous. c.
Therefore one can deduce
There are (and has been) an infinite number of Change events.

B.
Evolution exists as a consequence of Change events. d.
A rare portion of Evolution is progressive (i.e. gives rise to higher, more intelligent life forms, with greater survivor-ship potential)
There is no reason to suggest that evolution is necessarily restricted to the history of Earth. e
Therefore one can deduce
Given an infinite number of Change events a maximized realization of progressive Evolution has occurred.

A maximized progressively evolved being has therefore existed, and may (especially in view of enhanced survivor-ability) still exist.

A maximized progressively evolved being is a maximally perfected being.

A maximized perfected being is God

Support:

a. Philosophically, the sum total of all existence could never have at any time been Nothing, as Nothing has no potential to produce anything or change into anything. Since we exist now, Something must have always existed. This statement also follows in physics from the Law of Conservation of Energy.

b. Philosophically, the sum total of all existence must have always had potential for change or else Existence would have (without potential for change) been forever "stuck" in one state. This is not the case now, hence potential for change has always existed.

c. By observation our present existence that matter and energy is in a continuous state of change. There is no evidence that this is ever not the case. There is no proposed mechanism where an all encompassing frozen state of all Existence could even be possible.

d. See Darwin.

e. Rule of modesty. It would be remarkable that our species (having undergone evolution) are unique amidst the cosmos.

God is a transliteration of the Germanic tribal word Gott. This is a title/name they gave to all their idols and totems. Neither god nor gott conveys the character and person of the Creater and Sustainer of life.

 

[Stripe]

Oh, yeah. OP.

Where did that guy go? :idunno:

 

[Idolater]

Apparently, photons have an upper limit on mass they might have of 7×10^-17eV (according to long-distance electro-static measurements).

But maybe they have mass and Newton remains in the picture.

There are alternatives to Einstein out there.

That's interesting. If I've understood, they say that if photons are truly massless, then we ought to be able to show it, and that so far, we can only positively confirm that photons do not possess mass more than the 7×10^-17eV figure. They may indeed have zero mass, but we can't prove it definitively.

 

[Right Divider]

Light has no mass. That is why it travels at the speed of light. All massless particles and only massless particles travel at c.

[FONT=&quot]A photon walks into a hotel. The desk clerk says, "Welcome to our hotel. Can we help you with your luggage?" The photon says, "No thanks, I'm traveling light."[/FONT]

 

[Clete]

In the world of maths, exactness is possible. However, E is mathematically demonstrable as only approximately equal to mass times the speed of light squared.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

It might be possible to find the exact relationship. I'm not sure on that one. Or it might be like pi. Irrational numbers are only able to be expressed exactly by inventing a symbol for them.

Well, yes and no. Mathematically speaking, yes, but there is no physical relationship between any real circle and the 900th decimal place of π. Once you get passed some number of decimal places, the figure becomes truly meaningless in relation to any physical thing. Eventually you get down to things that would less than one Planck Length in size.

In the physical realm, c is, as you say, defined as the speed of light under perfect conditions, so that number can never be found in direct testing, as there will always be a margin of error.

That does not render either the value of c nor Einstien's equations aproximations.

Maths is the only way to define Einstein's equation exactly, but that is yet to be done (as far as I know).

I don't understand what you mean here.

 

[Clete]

So what?

What do you mean, so what?

So, it's not an aproximation and it's merely a mathematical contruct. That is precisely how fast light travels in a vacuum.

The speed of light has nothing to do with the mathematical constant c in the formula E=mc².

Contradict yourself much?

Exactly.

Thank you for conceding this meaningless debate.

It doesn't matter whether we call π "the speed of tortoise" or whether we call c "the speed of light".
π and c are both mathematical constants.
Any apparent similarity between the speed of tortoise and π is a mere coincidence.
Any apparent similarity between the speed of light and c is also a mere coincidence.

And as such it is irrelevant, which was my point. Again, thank you for conceding the point.

 

[Clete]

That's interesting. If I've understood, they say that if photons are truly massless, then we ought to be able to show it, and that so far, we can only positively confirm that photons do not possess mass more than the 7×10^-17eV figure. They may indeed have zero mass, but we can't prove it definitively.

Actually, the fact that it travels at c is the proof.

All massless particles travel at c. The reason they travel at c is because they are massless. Thus, any particle traveling at c must be massless.

This is true, in part, because it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any amount of mass to the speed of light.

 

[Idolater]

Actually, the fact that it travels at c is the proof.

That may be the case, but the link Stripe provided didn't say that, and instead talked about some other means of determining whether photons are truly and really massless.

All massless particles travel at c. The reason they travel at c is because they are massless. Thus, any particle traveling at c must be massless.

This is true, in part, because it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any amount of mass to the speed of light.

But doesn't the above depend upon E=mc^2 being infinitely correct? iow, isn't this begging the question?

Again as far as I understood what I read from Stripe's link, attempts have been made to determine whether photons are truly and really massless, and the best measurement method available at the time of that link's writing, and assuming that it is accurate, basically has a 'method detection limit' of the quoted 7×10^-17eV figure, and so iow it hasn't been positively determined through measurement that photon in fact are truly and really massless, because the best method's detection limit is positive, and not zero.

(If the method's detection limit was zero, then it would be able to definitely positively confirm---or deny---that photons are indeed massless.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detection_limit

 

[Clete]

That may be the case, but the link Stripe provided didn't say that, and instead talked about some other means of determining whether photons are truly and really massless.

I don't know how to explain the science, I'm not that much of an expert. It has to do with Maxwell's equations, and the Lorenz Tranformation, neither of which anyone one disputes and what they mean in relation to why nothing can travel faster than 299792458 m/s.

The bottom line is that nothing with mass can ever attain the speed of light.

But doesn't the above depend upon E=mc^2 being infinitely correct? iow, isn't this begging the question?

No. The fact that nothing with mass can travel faster than light is not a consequence of Einstein's equations, it's the other way around. Einstein's equations are what they are because 299792458 m/s is the cosmic speed limit. It is the Lorenz Tranformation that predicts the value of c, not Einstein's theories.

Again as far as I understood what I read from Stripe's link, attempts have been made to determine whether photons are truly and really massless, and the best measurement method available at the time of that link's writing, and assuming that it is accurate, basically has a 'method detection limit' of the quoted 7×10^-17eV figure, and so iow it hasn't been positively determined through measurement that photon in fact are truly and really massless, because the best method's detection limit is positive, and not zero.

If Maxwell's equations are correct then asking the question is a moot point. The fact that they travel at c is proof that they must be massless.

If someone were to prove that light has mass, it wouldn't just be the last century of physics that would be crushed to powder but virutally the whole of science itself and our ability to communicate meaningful information. Causality itself would be crushed to powder, not just Einstein.

Watch this video, it does a much better job of explain it than I am capable of.

https://youtu.be/msVuCEs8Ydo

(If the method's detection limit was zero, then it would be able to definitely positively confirm---or deny---that photons are indeed massless.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detection_limit

Attempting to weigh something that travels at light speed might be a fun project to attempt but is just as much a waste of time as is the hunt for non-existant dark matter.