Spirituality
11 Feb 12
20 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadActually you were not clear on your question, since like I said I could be right
That it happened. Do you think you could be wrong in believing that World War I took place? Its not a difficult question and it really only has a yes / no answer.
about somethings on WW1 and wrong about others it is a huge topic. So if
your question about did it happen, yes it did, and I do not believe I could be
wrong about that.
Kelly
20 Feb 12
Originally posted by KellyJaySo the bottom line is you don't believe space is malleable? It is space that squishes when you look at two masses going say 0.9c, the speed of light is still 1.00000c. Space contracts as you get up close to c. We know that happens because we see evidence in many ways. We don't have to build a spaceship that goes close to c to see the effects. The effects, for instance, Pion's come in from cosmic distances, going at something like 0.9999c. Pion's naturally decay in 2.6 E-8 seconds, 26 nanoseconds. That is at normal velocities. Now if it were coming in at say 10,000 miles per second, when it hits the top of the atmosphere and splats into a shower of particles, the particles that result and check out in nanoseconds are gone before they hit the ground. The cute thing is, at 186,200 mps or close to c, time slows down internally for that particle and it thinks say 26 nanoseconds has gone by inside itself, but to us the outside viewer, the actual time is say a millisecond. And that means the particle doesn't splat, decay before it hits a detector. Otherwise the fast guys would pop in space or high in the atmosphere before it could get to a detector on the ground. That way, we can measure the energy of a particle and suss out what it was and how fast it was going. After a million such experiments you get a feel for what sub atomic particles are actually doing. Not that I ever did that, I only work with accelerators of less than an MEV but I have do know those accelerators and they are the same basic principle as the big guys like the one in Cern. So for those particles, time is a variable which is exactly why we can measure some of them on the ground at all. If it wasn't for relativity, we would never see them, they would pop before the get to the ground.
So if one is moving left a the speed of light, and another is moving right at the
speed of light in your not so humble opinion they are moving away from each
other at?
Kelly
21 Feb 12
Originally posted by sonhouseYea, I've gone round and round here talking about time being a constant or
So the bottom line is you don't believe space is malleable? It is space that squishes when you look at two masses going say 0.9c, the speed of light is still 1.00000c. Space contracts as you get up close to c. We know that happens because we see evidence in many ways. We don't have to build a spaceship that goes close to c to see the effects. The effects, f ...[text shortened]... sn't for relativity, we would never see them, they would pop before the get to the ground.
not. If we were talking about actually creating something to move at the
speed of light so we could go in different direction I'd say we hit all kinds of
issues true, but that wasn't the question now was it.
Kelly
21 Feb 12
Originally posted by KellyJaySo why do you criticize me for saying I could not be wrong about something, when you too make the same claim about something else? What is the difference? Why do you feel justified to make the claim, but think I am a pompous fool for making the same claim about a different issue?
Actually you were not clear on your question, since like I said I could be right
about somethings on WW1 and wrong about others it is a huge topic. So if
your question about did it happen, yes it did, and I do not believe I could be
wrong about that.
Kelly
21 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadI've pointed out the reasons for this over and over, maybe you missed it, I
So why do you criticize me for saying I could not be wrong about something, when you too make the same claim about something else? What is the difference? Why do you feel justified to make the claim, but think I am a pompous fool for making the same claim about a different issue?
would not be suprised at all. There is a difference between the here and now
and the distant past, there is a difference between what has occured during
mankinds recorded history and that which completely outside of our recorded
history. You want to lay at my feet that I cannot be wrong about WW1 and
think it is no difference what you claim is billions or millions of years ago. If
you think they are on par with one another, fine I no longer think that would
surpise me when it comes to you and your views.
Kelly
21 Feb 12
Originally posted by KellyJayI acknowledge I maybe a moron, but he is a Oxymoron. 😏
I've pointed out the reasons for this over and over, maybe you missed it, I
would not be suprised at all. There is a difference between the here and now
and the distant past, there is a difference between what has occured during
mankinds recorded history and that which completely outside of our recorded
history. You want to lay at my feet that I cannot ...[text shortened]... ther, fine I no longer think that would
surpise me when it comes to you and your views.
Kelly
21 Feb 12
Originally posted by KellyJayI probably missed it because you are always very vague and avoid answering most questions directly. Even here you simply state as fact something that clearly needs explanation ie you don't actually answer it at all.
I've pointed out the reasons for this over and over, maybe you missed it, I
would not be suprised at all.
There is a difference between the here and now and the distant past,
World War I is not the here and now. Neither of us witnessed it.
there is a difference between what has occured during
mankinds recorded history and that which completely outside of our recorded
history.
And I am asking you to explain what that difference is. Simply stating that there is a difference just doesn't cut it.
You want to lay at my feet that I cannot be wrong about WW1 and
think it is no difference what you claim is billions or millions of years ago.
Yes, I do.
If you think they are on par with one another, fine I no longer think that would
surpise me when it comes to you and your views.
Kelly
Yes, I think they are on par with one another. And you have been totally unable to explain why you think they are not. Instead you repeat over and over and over till you are blue in the face 'they are not, they are not, they are not!'. But never do you say why, and when I try to find out why, you avoid the questions like the plague. Its taken you many pages of posts just to admit that you believe World War I must have happened. This kind of deliberate evasion can only mean one thing ie you have no valid argument to give. Even now, the best you can come up with is "I give up, you must be mad" when in reality you have presented nothing whatsoever to support your views. You just claim that you are right and I am wrong but cannot back it up. You cant even attempt to explain it. You just state it as fact and think nobody will notice.
21 Feb 12
Originally posted by KellyJayJust wondered if you think what I wrote was bullocks.
Yea, I've gone round and round here talking about time being a constant or
not. If we were talking about actually creating something to move at the
speed of light so we could go in different direction I'd say we hit all kinds of
issues true, but that wasn't the question now was it.
Kelly
22 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell said.
Correct. But I can be pretty confident based on what I see. If I look at Table Mountain which is about 10 kilometres away from where I live, I can be pretty confident that the light has been travelling 10 kilometres, and I could work out, based on the speed of light how long it has been travelling. Even better, I could put a mirror on Table Mountain and a ...[text shortened]... sion. So either God created an illusion or he did not create light in transit. Its simple logic.
22 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI understand you to be referring here to the hypothesis, that I believe you have stated many times on here, that (1) distance (either spatially or temporally) affects our ability to measure accurately (2) because the parameters (constants—e.g., the speed of light) may have changed, a fact which we cannot know. This is not just factually, but analytically (logically) incorrect. I think I can demonstrate that.
I've pointed out the reasons for this over and over, maybe you missed it, I
would not be suprised at all. There is a difference between the here and now
and the distant past, there is a difference between what has occured during
mankinds recorded history and that which completely outside of our recorded
history. You want to lay at my feet that I cannot ...[text shortened]... ther, fine I no longer think that would
surpise me when it comes to you and your views.
Kelly
Take the simple equation y=ax + b. Basically, what this equation says is that, given any value for x, if we know the constants a and b, then we know the value of y. This is likely an equation that is familiar to you (it is a simple one to graph).
However, if you replace b with u—where u just means a variable whose value is unknown over (an also unknown) range, then the equation becomes y=ax+u. But that equation is insoluble, because the value of u is unknown.
The point, though, is that the equation is equally insoluble close to the y axis as more distant from it; the value of y is not more knowable nearer to the y-axis than further away. That is, knowing the value of x cannot tell you what y is, no matter how close to the y axis you get.
Extending that example to any case of measurement or solving for an unknown, once the constants necessary for measurement are allowed to vary in an unknown (or random) way—well, there is no basis for just assuming that the variation takes place further from the point of origin than nearer, or over a larger range than a smaller. Last deci-millenianism is as (in-)valid as is last millenianism, as is last yearism, as is last Thursdayism. That is what all the references to “Last Thursdayism” here are saying.
__________________________________________________
If, however, you are only saying that the possibility that our constants (standards of measure) are not necessarily constant—but might vary in unknown ways—then there is no justification whatever for putting one’s faith in one possibility over another. “Faith”, in that case, is just the a priori, ungrounded and unjustified (and unjustifiable) conclusion that one particular random solution (one dart thrown at the board by a monkey) can be reliably taken to be the case. You could, of course, be a total skeptic (of the Cartesian sort).