Originally posted by scottishinnzIt's proof to the individual that receives this knowledge , that fact that it can't be translated to another individual as "proof" is neither here nor there. Everyone has to take their own personal journey and in that journey there is a testable hypothesis within that framework.
So it's not a testable proof, but is merely an opinion.
So it is not a testable hypothesis in the sense that one can conduct an experiment that will demonstrate a proof to a mass of individuals in one go but it is still a testable hypothesis for each individual to make their own "experiment". There are many testable elements of Christianity of this kind , if there weren't then it would be just opinion and nothing else.
Originally posted by scottishinnz"The speed of light is the SAME for all inertial observers, regardless of the motion of the source."
I'll look forward to it.
I have to say that I sure there more to this than I got out of it, because for me it was about observation not so much reality. Measuring events in time is a very precise matter that is quite exhausting depending on fine you want to time your events. I’m not overly impressed with just human observation of any event, maybe you could come up with an example that doesn’t deal with human perception just time and space.
I did start reading your 2nd link, but did not spend much time on it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThe second one is arguably the more important of the two.
"The speed of light is the SAME for all inertial observers, regardless of the motion of the source."
I have to say that I sure there more to this than I got out of it, because for me it was about observation not so much reality. Measuring events in time is a very precise matter that is quite exhausting depending on fine you want to time your events. I’m ...[text shortened]... ime and space.
I did start reading your 2nd link, but did not spend much time on it.
Kelly
However, essentially, Minkowski space-time links both 3 dimensional space with one dimensional time in a four dimensional matrix. It is, as I'm told, by far and away the easiest way of expressing and manipulating general relativity. There is the possibility that light has not always travelled at the same speed throughout time, but no hard data on that exists yet, and even if it did, it may not make very much difference.
Essentially, in a singularity, such as that which preceded the BB, photons cannot escape the gravitational pull of the singularity, so time cannot exist.
The physics is very complicated, but I found "Brief history of time" did quite a good job of explaining it - one that I am not qualified to try and emulate.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzMy issue with what you keep saying is that because matter may be stuck by gravity, time becomes stuck too. My question remains, why? Time may mark the measurement of matter through space, but is it bound to it for its very existence? I don't see that in anything I have read, much like the clock during a sporting event, where everything is bound to the time being kept for the event. During the event time outs are called, play stoppage due to this that or the other may arise where the game time is delayed, yet time doesn't stop. My wife likes to say football time is not real time, when she asks me how much time is left in an American foot ball game, if I say 2 minutes, her response now is, 'is that foot ball time or real time' since one tracks the event in the game, the other is what it is.
The second one is arguably the more important of the two.
However, essentially, Minkowski space-time links both 3 dimensional space with one dimensional time in a four dimensional matrix. It is, as I'm told, by far and away the easiest way of expressing and manipulating general relativity. There is the possibility that light has not always travelle time" did quite a good job of explaining it - one that I am not qualified to try and emulate.
At best, the only thing stopped is the ability to measure events occuring, that does not mean that time has stopped, only the ability to measure with it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySeriously man, the physics takes very good care of it. Why not read "brief history" or similar?
My issue with what you keep saying is that because matter may be stuck by gravity, time becomes stuck too. My question remains, why? Time may mark the measurement of matter through space, but is it bound to it for its very existence? I don't see that in anything I have read, much like the clock during a sporting event, where everything is bound to the time ...[text shortened]... uring, that does not mean that time has stopped, only the ability to measure with it.
Kelly
Sure, it'll take time, but all good things do.
Originally posted by scottishinnzGive me the readers digest version (condense version) of it, if you can wet my appetite I'll go get the book. I'll not attempt to question you as you attempt to describe the highlights; just give me a feel of what you got out of it. You have already stated you do not think you could do it justice; I’ll take your word for that.
Seriously man, the physics takes very good care of it. Why not read "brief history" or similar?
Sure, it'll take time, but all good things do.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayUm, okay, basically the book takes the reader through a simplified version of the theory of relativity, explaining the consequences it has for, well, all sorts of things ("E=mc2" by David Bodanis is also a good book). It explains the concepts of Minkowski space, Black holes / singularities, and, if I remember rightly, gives a discourse on the first few minutes of the universe existing.
Give me the readers digest version (condense version) of it, if you can wet my appetite I'll go get the book. I'll not attempt to question you as you attempt to describe the highlights; just give me a feel of what you got out of it. You have already stated you do not think you could do it justice; I’ll take your word for that.
Kelly
However, it was a number of years ago that I read it, so it'd be wise not to quote me on this...
Originally posted by scottishinnzI agree it's not objective in the sense that it is personal and individual , however saying it is subjective does not diminish the testability of it. It's simply that one the test has been passed for the individual it is not easily translated to another individual because the experiment is an individual one.
But it's not objective, it's subjective. An opinion, if you will.
You seem not content with just saying you disagree with others belief in God and their experience of testing this hypothesis . You seem to want to discredit it as well. We always want to squash what we fear.
Originally posted by knightmeisterDon't try to impose your own issue onto me. I'm a scientist, I just try to squash lies, and de-mask fraudsters.
You seem not content with just saying you disagree with others belief in God and their experience of testing this hypothesis . You seem to want to discredit it as well. We always want to squash what we fear.