Age of the universe and Relativity of Time
- Thread starter Lighthouse
- Start date
- Status
shredguitar17
New member
Explain why this is a joke? Well your having a creationist asking a question to evolutionists in a condescending tone; not a good way to start off. Second, he speaks like he is constipated. Third, the question and logic explaining beforehand are not well thought out, nor put in a manner that someome can relate to and answer.
@ Lighthouse: How do you answer THE QUESTION when the QUESTION is a statement and not even established?
allsmiles
New member
:doh:
I suddenly feel sorry for encouraging you.
Sorry Lighthouse, I was hoping he would do better than this.
:wave2:
eveningsky339
New member
If I turn on my radio while the weather is cooperating, I can receive a news station from Scotland. Radio waves travel as fast as the speed of light (when the DJ speaks into the mic, listeners hear him/her instantaneously).
So, are you proposing that time is "different" for the radio waves?
Because, if you recall, e=mc^2. "c" is the speed of light. "m" is mass. Would you care to explain how in heaven's name radio waves have mass?
So, are you proposing that time is "different" for the radio waves?
Because, if you recall, e=mc^2. "c" is the speed of light. "m" is mass. Would you care to explain how in heaven's name radio waves have mass?
One technical comment: The theory of relativity does not say you will travel through time at the speed of light, it says that anything with mass absolutely cannot travel the speed of light. This is because an object with mass would require infinite momentum to reach the speed of light. Information cannot travel faster than the speed of light for a myriad of reasons, but one consequence of information traveling faster than light would be a violation of causality (i.e. an effect before the cause). I think that may have been where you were going with that.
In response to your main point, you answered your own question when you said, "why are they so certain that that light had to travel over that much time from our perspective". If it is light traveling at the speed of light, then we might argue over how much time the "light has experienced" (though the passage of time is undefined at the speed of light), but it does not change how much time has passed from our perspective -- hence the relative part (i.e. the earth has experienced 5 billion years).
shredguitar17
New member
How am I suppose to answer something that there is no question too? Ive gone over this video a few times and can barely understand what the question is at hand? What are you trying to ask lighthouse?
And johnny answered correctly: Lighthouse answered his own "question" in the video itself.
There is no need to defend myself on such a thread that has no meaning and nearly no thought to why it was even started. The video only shows that someone can really have a hard time articulating himself, while simultaniously making everyone who watches it in worse condition than before they watched it. In no way is it relevant to anything that was posted in the title; the title ensures that inside the thread is something meaningful and a somewhat thought out legitimate point to be made, which from watching the video, it was not.
@ Allsmiles: Please enlighten us on what you think on this subject matter mr. know everything by being witty and sarcastic, because without you, we would know nothing!
"Evolutionists say..." My isn't your bias showing? Why not start by saying "Cosmologists say..." Or "Astronomers say..." Or "Physicists say..."
I'll bet there are "evolutionists" who really understand less of the concept of light and time than you do. Hard to believe, but my guess is that is true.
I'll bet there are "evolutionists" who really understand less of the concept of light and time than you do. Hard to believe, but my guess is that is true.
Let's explain how opposite of smart you are.
I made this video because I don't know the answer of how, or why, the light had to take billions of years if time moves faster in space, where there is no gravity. So of course it isn't well thought out, because I don't know...
Who is this directed toward?
I know this. But it theorizes that if you could, and you could surpass the speed of light, then you would travel through time...
I understand this.
If you say so.
At the speed of light you get "Undefined" from the equation (plugging into the Lorentz equation leaves you with 1/0, which is undefined) and beyond the speed of light you get imaginary numbers (square root of a negative number). Whatever that means.
There's a reason it becomes imaginary at that point...
Enlighten me..
How does it feel to admit that you're not as smart as you previously proposed to be?
It becomes imaginary because it's made up.:dunce::duh:
I suspect you are wrong but I really do not recall enough math to discuss in detail. I do have some vague recollection of 0 meeting the mathematical definition of an imaginary number for example
For someone who claims to be so smart you certainly are one of the dumbest people I have ever come across.
Coming from you that is flattery of the highest order.
I suppose you have a substantial mathematics background that enables you to discuss imaginary numbers, you know, i. A math background beyond, oh, intro to algebra? Please let us know.
Other than that, you are quick at the nasty comment but light on substance.
Thanks.
Oh, OK, sorry I should have realized your video was meant to be funny. It wasn't but then perhaps I have a different sense of humor.
Ok, but NOW the video IS funny!!!
Come on now.... it's brave of Lighthouse to put up a video like this. It's easy to mock his video from the safety of your keyboard.
A brave man would make a video in response.
- Status