genuineoriginal
New member
It doesn't matter how fast light travels in a vacuum.
The speed that light travels has no bearing whatsoever on the relationship between E and m, even if some people chose to call c "the speed of light".
Nope.
Argument supporting existence of a God
- Thread starter SaintAndrew
- Start date
- Status
The speed that light travels has no bearing whatsoever on the relationship between E and m, even if some people chose to call c "the speed of light".
Yeah. That upper limit is a ridiculously small number, so the assumption of zero might be more than justified. I don't know much about the measurement process though.
Do you know what a Taylor series is?
I think this is the key to our disagreement.
For those who stick with Einstein, they can use his equations and assumptions and produce useful and very accurate results.
However, such success does not prove his assumptions to be a description of reality. There might be a better means of accounting for the relationship between mass and light.
For those who reject Einstein, the debate might be over negligible — perhaps even undetectable — differences in value in some cases, but they have the advantage of not being tied to counterintuitive assumptions.
20 arguments for God's existence provided by Peter Kreeft.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
Aimiel
Well-known member
I still like the analogy of an unlimited amount of time for a landslide to occur which would accidentally cause a house to be formed, a clock to appear on the wall and show the correct time and be in perfect working order. The odds against that happening are far less than the 'accidental' creation of life, especially intelligent life.
I like the dead body analogy.
You have all the ingredients for life to arise, in the correct order, and in the right amounts, and yet, no life forms from the dead body.
Abiogenesis?
Pfft, not possible.
Life is information based. And all information comes from previously existing information, as does all life comes from previously existing life. Life cannot arise from non-life.
God is the life-giver, because He is a living Being who has always existed.
If you mean simply that it isn't about light itself then yes, c isn't so much the speed of light as it is the speed of causality. Light, being massless, simply has no impediment to speed and so go at the fastest possible speed. The same thing that governs the relationship between energy and mass is the same thing that creates the cosmic speed limit.
You know what this last several posts of talking past one another was caused by?
You being intentionally unclear about what you meant.
You seem to want to waste my time. I won't allow it any further. I won't be responding to any more of your posts on this topic. You either have no idea what you're talking about or are being intentionally difficult or both. Either way, it's no longer worth my time.
Clete
No. Never heard of it.
Okay but that doesn't mean that his equations and the speed of light are aproximations.
And, I don't think I'd be counted in the group that "stick with Einstein". I don't believe in "space time". Space and time are both ideas, and do not exist in an ontological sense. As such the past and future are also ideas. Everything that does exist, exists now and only now.
The equation is an approximation: It is derived from the first term in a Taylor series. The speed of light is an approximation because it cannot be measured perfectly. C is a theoretical concept.
You should read my book.
NOPE! Saying it doesn't make it so.
The speed of light has been measured a million times over many decades of time. The most accurate physical measurement was done in 1973 and measured a speed of 299792.4574 m/s +-0.0011 meters/sec. That's an accuracy of 1 part in 272,538,597.6363636.
Further more c is now EXACTLY 299792458 metres per second, by definition!
In no way is that an aproximate value nor is it a theoretical concept.
It makes no sense why you cannot let this go! You're wrong! You're just simply flatly completely and totally wrong? Why continue to repeat this idiotic nonsense?
I can quote as many sources as there are in existence on what the speed of light is. Why do you persist? Where's the pay off? What possible motive could there possibly be for this lunacy?
I swear it feel like I'm talking to a bunch of flat earthers!
:chuckle:
It's just how I approach the issue. It's still possible for us to discuss matters, as long as we respect each others' viewpoint.
"I just saw the Earth behind that cloud."
"Did it look round?"
"Yeah, but I don't think it saw me."
Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
Barbarian thinks God isn't alive. :chuckle:
Stripe thinks the Earth is alive.
:darwinsm:
- Status