22 May 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydc is still the velocity of light in vacuum.
Now THAT is impressive! Won't this change a lot of the physics we were taught concerning the absolute unchanging nature of the speed of light? If the speed of light can be stopped completely, e=mc2, can become e=0, right?
You can trap a photon in a cavity in its self resonating phase, but when you let it go it will retain its natural velocity in an instant.
It will not change anything, more than our knowledge about light has grown.
06 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe ability to do tricks with light is growing in leaps and bounds. The latest is the ability to increase the sensitivity of the LIGO gravitational wave detectors, now just about at the quantum limit of detectability.
[b]c is still the velocity of light in vacuum.
You can trap a photon in a cavity in its self resonating phase, but when you let it go it will retain its natural velocity in an instant.
It will not change anything, more than our knowledge about light has grown.[/b
They have to measure movements on the order of one thousands the distance across an atom and with good reproducablity. They are not detecting gravity waves yet even with that extreme sensitivity.
So the latest is they can bend the laws of quantum physics, that is to say, if you know the position of an object you cannot exactly know the velocity and so forth, quantum uncertainty. But they have figured out how to 'squeeze' light so they can get a better measurement of its amplitude at the expense of its phase, which is not needed in the LIGO machines. They have reported a potential 44 % increase in the sensitivity of the LIGO by this means, which they have yet to implement in the actual LIGO but it was a multi-disciplinarian team that did the work. I can scrounge up the link if you are interested.
Found it:
http://www.physorg.com/news131883538.html
07 Jun 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzDo you always have to bring in how the Bible is viewed when discussing
Perhaps, not everything we think is true really is. I accept that. I'm ALWAYS willing to change my mind as and when the [b]balance of evidence shifts. Anyone who believes in a literal reading of the bible is unable to do that, because they lend no credibility to the evidence. That is to say they trust the words in one book as greater than the sum total of the evidence to the contrary. THAT is intellectual dishonesty, in my opinion.[/b]
issue of science with me? Shouldn't that be left on the Spiritual board,
or is that simply a fall back way to make a point of yours seem
stronger if you can bring beliefs about scripture into a discussion? I'm
not telling you to accept any notion about any subject due to the
weight of any verse of scripture, yet you bring up scripture anyway;
why do you do that?
Kelly
07 Jun 08
Originally posted by KellyJayBible is just a good analogy. I could ask you - do you believe the Bible? Is it reality or everything written there has happened just in theory? Which has more evidence GR or Bible? No attacks on the analogy, please. I just want to read some straight answers.
Do you always have to bring in how the Bible is viewed when discussing
issue of science with me? Shouldn't that be left on the Spiritual board,
or is that simply a fall back way to make a point of yours seem
stronger if you can bring beliefs about scripture into a discussion? I'm
not telling you to accept any notion about any subject due to the
weight of any verse of scripture, yet you bring up scripture anyway;
why do you do that?
Kelly
07 Jun 08
Originally posted by kbaumenIf I tell you a story, or if we read about an event that is not a theory
Bible is just a good analogy. I could ask you - do you believe the Bible? Is it reality or everything written there has happened just in theory? Which has more evidence GR or Bible? No attacks on the analogy, please. I just want to read some straight answers.
that is a story/discussion about an event; it either took place as it was
discussed or written about, or it did not, that isn't a theory that is a
story/discussion about an event. What makes a theory is a little
different than that, and with respect to my question, it was personally
directed at scottishinnz so I'll let him speak for himself as to why he
brought it up, as elegant or thoughtful as your responses are or could
be, cannot tell me why scottishinnz said or did something that has to
come from him.
Kelly
07 Jun 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI know it was directed to scottishnnz but I thought his idea was quite interesting so decided to post also. This is an open discussion. Anyone can participate.
If I tell you a story, or if we read about an event that is not a theory
that is a story/discussion about an event; it either took place as it was
discussed or written about, or it did not, that isn't a theory that is a
story/discussion about an event. What makes a theory is a little
different than that, and with respect to my question, it was personall ...[text shortened]...
be, cannot tell me why scottishinnz said or did something that has to
come from him.
Kelly
I wrote that I wanted some straight answers. You didn't give me any. Of course you aren't forced to answer but that would help the discussion. So, do you believe the bible?
Do the knowledge about how Adam and Eve got banned from Eden help us? What about time dilation? It certainly is useful, for example, in the previously mentioned GPS.
The point I'm trying to make, is that your statement "in theory" is useless because GR has evidence (a lot of it) so it's not only theory but also practice.
Just my 0.02$
08 Jun 08
Originally posted by kbaumenI tell you what, you can either post those questions in the Spiritual
I know it was directed to scottishnnz but I thought his idea was quite interesting so decided to post also. This is an open discussion. Anyone can participate.
I wrote that I wanted some straight answers. You didn't give me any. Of course you aren't forced to answer but that would help the discussion. So, do you believe the bible?
Do the knowled ...[text shortened]... GR has evidence (a lot of it) so it's not only theory but also practice.
Just my 0.02$
forum, or go read my previous posts there and else where and figure
it out yourself. This is an open forum correct I am not suggesting
otherwise either, but my question was put to just to him. Not that you
cannot post to the point, but I was asking for his reasons, not a
open question to the world, and your answers for why he posted are
just opinion even if he says your correct, we will not know until he
speaks why he brought it up.
You want to discuss the Bible in the science forum feel free I'm not
at all suggesting you cannot, others here may, but I guess that
depends on what direction the wind blows around here.
Kelly
08 Jun 08
Originally posted by KellyJayMainly, I am making a comparison between the way science works, and the way that your model of existence works, in order to emphasize the difference between those two methods of thinking.
Do you always have to bring in how the Bible is viewed when discussing
issue of science with me? Shouldn't that be left on the Spiritual board,
or is that simply a fall back way to make a point of yours seem
stronger if you can bring beliefs about scripture into a discussion? I'm
not telling you to accept any notion about any subject due to the
weight of any verse of scripture, yet you bring up scripture anyway;
why do you do that?
Kelly
If you want me to stop mentioning the bible, that's fine. However, I know this to be the point from which your belief into the majority of these areas stems, so I felt that was a useful to include those distinctions.
08 Jun 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzYea, I know, it has to be about me not the facts at hand. You want to
Mainly, I am making a comparison between the way science works, and the way that your model of existence works, in order to emphasize the difference between those two methods of thinking.
If you want me to stop mentioning the bible, that's fine. However, I know this to be the point from which your belief into the majority of these areas stems, so I felt that was a useful to include those distinctions.
make this about me, it isn't about me. I can be right or wrong about
a great many things as you can be, you are not "science" and do not
speak for science any more than I can speak for all Christians. If
you’d just limit your discussion to something other than personal
messages we might make some head way.
Kelly
08 Jun 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf you want to discuss my views about the Bible I suggest you move
Mainly, I am making a comparison between the way science works, and the way that your model of existence works, in order to emphasize the difference between those two methods of thinking.
If you want me to stop mentioning the bible, that's fine. However, I know this to be the point from which your belief into the majority of these areas stems, so I felt that was a useful to include those distinctions.
that part of your discussion to the Spiritual board.
Kelly
08 Jun 08
Seems that we do not agree about if it is possible to go by the speed of light, or not.
Therefore I'd like to start a poll:
Do you think...
(1) It is not possible to go by the speed of light.
(2) It is possible to go by the speed of light.
(3) It is possible to go faster than light.
(4) It will never be possible to go faster than light, ever.
(5) It is not possible to go faster than light with present knowledge, but in the future with new technology it is possible when we know how.
(6) In the future we will have technology to go anywhere in the universe without going faster than light (for example with the aid of using paralell dimensions, folding space, or other methods).
Vote for one or more alternatives above. Motivate if you want, don't if you don't want to.
08 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnas2,3,5,and 6. 😉
Seems that we do not agree about if it is possible to go by the speed of light, or not.
Therefore I'd like to start a poll:
Do you think...
(1) It is not possible to go by the speed of light.
(2) It is possible to go by the speed of light.
(3) It is possible to go faster than light.
(4) It will never be possible to go faster than light, ever. ...[text shortened]...
Vote for one or more alternatives above. Motivate if you want, don't if you don't want to.
08 Jun 08
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you feel that you can seperate out science from religion, fine. However, the fact that there are certain parts of valid science that you reject because you don't like the conclusions suggests that you cannot.
Yea, I know, it has to be about me not the facts at hand. You want to
make this about me, it isn't about me. I can be right or wrong about
a great many things as you can be, you are not "science" and do not
speak for science any more than I can speak for all Christians. If
you’d just limit your discussion to something other than personal
messages we might make some head way.
Kelly
However, what is the point you would actually like to discuss?
08 Jun 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasIf Einstein is right (and all the evidence suggests he is) 1 & 4.
Seems that we do not agree about if it is possible to go by the speed of light, or not.
Therefore I'd like to start a poll:
Do you think...
(1) It is not possible to go by the speed of light.
(2) It is possible to go by the speed of light.
(3) It is possible to go faster than light.
(4) It will never be possible to go faster than light, ever. ...[text shortened]...
Vote for one or more alternatives above. Motivate if you want, don't if you don't want to.
08 Jun 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzI do reject some things people say true, that is not rejecting science
If you feel that you can seperate out science from religion, fine. However, the fact that there are certain parts of valid science that you reject because you don't like the conclusions suggests that you cannot.
However, what is the point you would actually like to discuss?
it is simply a rejection of what some people say. I do not think my
disagreement of some of your beliefs/thoughts about reality or
anyone else' is a disagreement with science only with your/their
views on reality.
Conclusions that you have reached are not always going to be the
same ones I may come to given much of the same information,
which does not mean you personally are some how defective, it
only means we can disagree given the same information. It isn’t a
character flaw to disagree with me nor do I think it is one to
disagree with you, but from time to time I get the feeling that many
here do view not agreeing with them as some how making the
other person less than what they should be. Some clown here even
suggested only those with some level of education are qualified to
even question conclusions or views here, which I completely reject
out of hand as well.
Kelly