Einstein maybe right (re:speed of light), afterall
- Thread starter Quest
- Start date
- Status
Einstein debunked on Bitog, now there's a news flash.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You are coming off as being on about the same level as those who place creationism on a par with evoloution as serious theories.
Never heard of evoloution. But your sentence still doesn't make a ton of sense.
You are coming off as being on about the same level as those who place creationism on a par with evoloution as serious theories.
Never heard of evoloution. But your sentence still doesn't make a ton of sense.
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
There is a reason WHY Einstein's "theory" of relativity is called just that, a "theory".
Read the scientific definition of "theory" and then get back to us.
Originally Posted By: spock1
Gravity wave are incredibly faster than light.
No, they're not, since that's a different concept altogether. Gravity is not faster than light, in any case.
There is a reason WHY Einstein's "theory" of relativity is called just that, a "theory".
Read the scientific definition of "theory" and then get back to us.
Originally Posted By: spock1
Gravity wave are incredibly faster than light.
No, they're not, since that's a different concept altogether. Gravity is not faster than light, in any case.
Originally Posted By: Al
They are wrong they don't hold true for satellites.
That's not right. Every satellite ever launched, every trip to the moon, every motion of the planets and stars has been calculated using equations of motion that Newton invented. Ask Buzz Aldrin what equations he used to calculate orbital rendezvous techniques for his PhD dissertation. Orbital mechanics is not relativistic.
Now if you are referring to the time signals from GPS satellites then you have a point. But still this isn't quantum mechanics.
They are wrong they don't hold true for satellites.
That's not right. Every satellite ever launched, every trip to the moon, every motion of the planets and stars has been calculated using equations of motion that Newton invented. Ask Buzz Aldrin what equations he used to calculate orbital rendezvous techniques for his PhD dissertation. Orbital mechanics is not relativistic.
Now if you are referring to the time signals from GPS satellites then you have a point. But still this isn't quantum mechanics.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here, said the bartender. A neutrino walks into a bar. Neutrino. Knock knock.
^this
I know it was mainly a joke but it also shows what a mess finding something moving faster than c would make of our understanding of physics. So far everything we've ever observed <=c .
We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here, said the bartender. A neutrino walks into a bar. Neutrino. Knock knock.
^this
I know it was mainly a joke but it also shows what a mess finding something moving faster than c would make of our understanding of physics. So far everything we've ever observed <=c .
Originally Posted By: spock1
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
We know a great deal about the universe, and the laws of physics don't change just because we leave our system.
The experiment involving the measurement of the speed of the neutrinos was found to be flawed.
The neutrinos did not exceed the speed of light.
Einstein was a theoretical physicist, not an empiricist.
Thus far, he has not been proven wrong in what he proposed as theory.
Rather, the theories of this patent office clerk have been proven to be almost supernaturally correct.
Gravity wave are incredibly faster than light.
MR Einstein was wrong on that one and if he is wrong on that one the whole theory collapses.
Oh please....
can you even do the math to discuss this? Or is this parroting of opinions that "feel" right?
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
We know a great deal about the universe, and the laws of physics don't change just because we leave our system.
The experiment involving the measurement of the speed of the neutrinos was found to be flawed.
The neutrinos did not exceed the speed of light.
Einstein was a theoretical physicist, not an empiricist.
Thus far, he has not been proven wrong in what he proposed as theory.
Rather, the theories of this patent office clerk have been proven to be almost supernaturally correct.
Gravity wave are incredibly faster than light.
MR Einstein was wrong on that one and if he is wrong on that one the whole theory collapses.
Oh please....
can you even do the math to discuss this? Or is this parroting of opinions that "feel" right?
I believe that neutrino experiment/result was found to be flawed.
Exiting at first, but it was in error.
As to creationism being non scientific - man, some of you have to do a little homework! Plants and animals are found suddenly and at an extremely high state of operation. With parts that rely on other parts to work. For instance how could something 'know' to develop 18 systems to eventually work together in a million years? Of course not - it's nonsense.
There is no mechanical or biological method to change and do so, anyway.
Exiting at first, but it was in error.
As to creationism being non scientific - man, some of you have to do a little homework! Plants and animals are found suddenly and at an extremely high state of operation. With parts that rely on other parts to work. For instance how could something 'know' to develop 18 systems to eventually work together in a million years? Of course not - it's nonsense.
There is no mechanical or biological method to change and do so, anyway.
have you told DR. WHO about this?
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
As to creationism being non scientific - man, some of you have to do a little homework!
Well, it is non-scientific. It's not testable and it's not predictive. That doesn't mean creationism is wrong - it's simply not scientific.
Newton's Laws quantify gravity, among other things, very well. They certainly don't explain how it works or its origin. That's not the point of them.
They are scientific, though. F=ma worked in Newton's time, before Newton's time, today, and in the future.
As to creationism being non scientific - man, some of you have to do a little homework!
Well, it is non-scientific. It's not testable and it's not predictive. That doesn't mean creationism is wrong - it's simply not scientific.
Newton's Laws quantify gravity, among other things, very well. They certainly don't explain how it works or its origin. That's not the point of them.
They are scientific, though. F=ma worked in Newton's time, before Newton's time, today, and in the future.
Can we all agree that in the larger scheme of the universe even our BEST minds really know very little about it?
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Can we all agree that in the larger scheme of the universe even our BEST minds really know very little about it?
No.....
Can we all agree that in the larger scheme of the universe even our BEST minds really know very little about it?
No.....
MolaKule
Staff member
"Well, it is non-scientific. It's not testable and it's not predictive. That doesn't mean creationism is wrong - it's simply not scientific."
I appreciate your faith in materialistic naturalism, but it not the only scientific game in town.
It is a well know fact that intelligence produces intelligent artifacts. A human produces an encylopedia, for example.
Within the cell is an enormous amount of information stored within the DNA double helix and are stored as sequences of bases denoted as A,C,G,T. There is nothing in the bases themselves that would make them arrange themselves in predetermined ways, no more than the molecular forces in ink would make them align theselves into letters and words. Yet we have specific information content with the DNA to direct reproduction, repair itself, etc. So, the genetic code is not an outcome of raw chemistry anymore than than the words I produce here is a result of the silicon chip within my keyboard.
There is no known non-intelligent cause that has ever been observed to generate even a small portion of the enoromous information required for life.
So ID or creationism or whatever you want to call it predicts that since there was one mind behind the code, there would be consistency in the code, which is what we observe. If the organisms simply evolved from one to another with a different code, that code would be scrambled.
Belief in spontaneously occuring life by purely physio-chemical means (chemical evolution) and chance, on the grounds that there is no other paradigm available, is a logical fallacy of the false alternative.
I appreciate your faith in materialistic naturalism, but it not the only scientific game in town.
It is a well know fact that intelligence produces intelligent artifacts. A human produces an encylopedia, for example.
Within the cell is an enormous amount of information stored within the DNA double helix and are stored as sequences of bases denoted as A,C,G,T. There is nothing in the bases themselves that would make them arrange themselves in predetermined ways, no more than the molecular forces in ink would make them align theselves into letters and words. Yet we have specific information content with the DNA to direct reproduction, repair itself, etc. So, the genetic code is not an outcome of raw chemistry anymore than than the words I produce here is a result of the silicon chip within my keyboard.
There is no known non-intelligent cause that has ever been observed to generate even a small portion of the enoromous information required for life.
So ID or creationism or whatever you want to call it predicts that since there was one mind behind the code, there would be consistency in the code, which is what we observe. If the organisms simply evolved from one to another with a different code, that code would be scrambled.
Belief in spontaneously occuring life by purely physio-chemical means (chemical evolution) and chance, on the grounds that there is no other paradigm available, is a logical fallacy of the false alternative.
Last edited:
I don't believe for a second that all of the sights, sounds, memories, smells, science and emotions that can be recalled by an individual are in any way, shape or form the result purely of chemical interactions (nor can reasoning, or reflex)...either side requires faith.
Either "stuff" just happened and everything popped into existence and self assembled.
Or "stuff" just happened, and an almighty popped into existence, to assemble stuff.
I struggle daily with either.
Either "stuff" just happened and everything popped into existence and self assembled.
Or "stuff" just happened, and an almighty popped into existence, to assemble stuff.
I struggle daily with either.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
So ID or creationism or whatever you want to call it predicts that since there was one mind behind the code, there would be consistency in the code, which is what we observe. If the organisms simply evolved from one to another with a different code, that code would be scrambled.
Of course, I cannot dispute that. My argument is that such things have not been elevated to the point where they can be considered scientific theories.
Without stepping over the line into religious debate, if it's not falsifiable, it's not scientific. There are hundreds of variations of stories of creation throughout the world's cultures. Only one, or perhaps none, is right.
There were competing views on gravity, too. The ancient Greek view was that heavier objects always fell faster than lighter objects. That was clearly wrong, and became falsifiable when appropriate experiments were devised.
As for the original topic, it's the same thing. Either Einstein is right, and nothing with mass (among other things) can equal or exceed the speed of light, or he's wrong. Or, even, he's wrong but his view is simply a great approximation for most situations (just like Newton's laws).
No one has proved him wrong yet, and I don't see it happening any time soon, but that's no reason to stop trying.
So ID or creationism or whatever you want to call it predicts that since there was one mind behind the code, there would be consistency in the code, which is what we observe. If the organisms simply evolved from one to another with a different code, that code would be scrambled.
Of course, I cannot dispute that. My argument is that such things have not been elevated to the point where they can be considered scientific theories.
Without stepping over the line into religious debate, if it's not falsifiable, it's not scientific. There are hundreds of variations of stories of creation throughout the world's cultures. Only one, or perhaps none, is right.
There were competing views on gravity, too. The ancient Greek view was that heavier objects always fell faster than lighter objects. That was clearly wrong, and became falsifiable when appropriate experiments were devised.
As for the original topic, it's the same thing. Either Einstein is right, and nothing with mass (among other things) can equal or exceed the speed of light, or he's wrong. Or, even, he's wrong but his view is simply a great approximation for most situations (just like Newton's laws).
No one has proved him wrong yet, and I don't see it happening any time soon, but that's no reason to stop trying.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
to the above post..
Agreed! Nice work Mechtech2!
Agreed! Nice work Mechtech2!
^^^Likewise, a resoundingly well thought rebuttal.
Shame on the person who brought creationism into this, and shame on the cheerleading squad that followed. Creationism has nothing to do with this. Why is it that often when someone brings up science and interesting discoveries, religion has to come into the conversation and people start grouping up into different camps and attacking/defending... As if these things are not interesting just standing on their own. Honestly, it's kinda gross. Especially for a board which specifically has rules against it.
- Status
Similar threads
