Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…160161163165166…232

Comments

  • #4862
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    J C wrote: »
    If anything, including space, expanded faster than c, then it would have violated the law that nothing can travel faster than c.

    Actually the speed limit of c only applies to objects in space, not space itself.


  • #4863
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    Avatar MIA wrote: »
    If you can trust Stanford.

    "Light is composed of particles called photons. Each photon is a discrete packet of electromagnetic energy which travels at, what else, the speed of light."

    And is also part of the electro-magnetic wave spectrum in the range of 400-800 THz - visible light.


  • #4864
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    steamengine wrote: »
    Space is nothing - if it was something then speed of light limit would apply.
    Space is not 'nothing' and has matter embedded in it ... so it's expansion rate is indeed limited to the speed of light under current physical laws.

    steamengine wrote: »
    I think Harika is referring to sweeping the torch or laser right and left across a distant surface such the moon, and that the projected spot will travel faster than 'c'.
    Whatever Harika does the light from his torch will still be limited to c.


  • #4865
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    steamengine wrote: »
    And is also part of the electro-magnetic wave spectrum in the range of 400-800 THz - visible light.

    Which doesn't travel faster than the speed of light no matter how nimble you've trained your wrist.


  • #4866
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    I've honestly never heard of such a definition of 'spontaneous'.
    We may be surprised by some spontaneous (in the scientific sense of the word) occurrences ... but many spontaneous occurrences should be no surprise at all, given how commonly they occur ... the formation of snowflakes, for example.


  • Advertisement
  • #4867
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    J C wrote: »
    Quote:-
    "they can never explain where so much water came from, There is sufficient water in the oceans of the World to cover the entire planet to an average depth of 2.7 Kilometres. I'd say that provides enough water to flood the entire Earth !!!!
    https://www.quora.com/If-earth-was-a-solid-smooth-ball-how-deep-would-it-be-covered-by-the-total-water-it-has-now

    If the Earth was a smooth ball then yes, this would be true. But it isn't. All that waters is in large pools because the surface of the Earth is extremely bumpy, with the deepest point being nearly 11km deep. There is not enough water "to cover the entire planet to an average depth of 2.7km" above sea level, which is a very important distinction. To do this, the water from the oceans would have to be displaced out of the oceans and somehow float above sea level.

    Added point: The highest point on Earth is Mount Everest, whose peak is almost 9km above sea level.


  • #4868
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    J C wrote: »
    Space is not 'nothing' and has matter embedded in it

    Which is what they think they recently discovered with the Higgs boson experiments.

    However, I'm of the belief that at the start of the universe there were unique conditions, forces involved (you might argue they were supernatural) that meant the universe expanded far greater than C.


  • #4869
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robdonn wrote: »
    Actually the speed limit of c only applies to objects in space, not space itself.
    ... it applies to everything including space and the objects embedded therein.

    ... what is intriguing though is that it may not apply at the sub-atomic level in all cases ... and quantum theories like the quantum entanglement of electrons shows the potential to break c because they seem to be able to communicate instantly across great distances thereby indicating a signal speed approaching infinity.

    Some initial results from CERN also indicated a speed in excess of c for energised neutrinos.


  • #4870
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    robdonn wrote: »
    If the Earth was a smooth ball

    Plus, because liquid takes the form of the vessel that contains it, if there were enough water on the earth to cover the earth... it would do. :)


  • #4871
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Avatar MIA wrote: »
    Which doesn't travel faster than the speed of light no matter how nimble you've trained your wrist.
    Yes, Harika would need something like the Large Hadron Collider to do this ... and even then, the jury is still out on whether he might succeed.


  • Advertisement
  • #4872
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    J C wrote: »
    ... it applies to everything including space and the objects embedded therein.

    ... what is intriguing though is that it may not apply at the sub-atomic level in all cases ... and quantum theories like the quantum entanglement of electrons shows the potential to break c because they seem to be able to communicate instantly across great distances thereby indicating a signal speed approaching infinity.

    Some initial results from CERN indicated a speed in excess of c for energised neutrinos.

    But space is not the objects it contains, the speed of light uses space as the medium matter and energy travel within but it is not matter and energy. (At least not the type of energy that is restricted by c)

    Quantum entanglement also does not break c as there is no velocity. Nothing is moving in space between the particles.


  • #4873
    Harika
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,594 ✭✭✭Harika


    J C wrote: »
    Space is not 'nothing' and has matter embedded in it ... so it's expansion rate is indeed limited to the speed of light undr current physical laws.

    The big bang can also be pictured, although flawed, with a ballon where air gets pumped in. If you paint two points on the ballon and inflate it, quick enough, the points will distance itself from each other, faster than c. tata speed of light broken.

    J C wrote: »
    Whatever Harika does it will still be limited to c.

    No it is not, try it or do the maths.


  • #4874
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    Harika wrote: »
    The big bang can also be pictured, although flawed, with a ballon where air gets pumped in. If you paint two points on the ballon and inflate it, quick enough, the points will distance itself from each other, faster than c. tata speed of light broken.

    Just to clarify the point, neither of the 2 points/objects/galaxies are moving through space faster than c, but the space between them is expanding faster than c.


  • #4875
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    Harika wrote: »



    No it is not, try it or do the maths.

    Do you want to try yourself?

    Even two light beams traveling towards each other do not pass each other greater than the speed of light.


  • #4876
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robdonn wrote: »
    If the Earth was a smooth ball then yes, this would be true. But it isn't. All that waters is in large pools because the surface of the Earth is extremely bumpy, with the deepest point being nearly 11km deep. There is not enough water "to cover the entire planet to an average depth of 2.7km" above sea level, which is a very important distinction. To do this, the water from the oceans would have to be displaced out of the oceans and somehow float above sea level.

    Added point: The highest point on Earth is Mount Everest, whose peak is almost 9km above sea level.
    You're corrrect that it is the 'bumpiness' of the surface of the Earth that ensures we have any dry land at all.
    It is thought that the Earth had a much smoother surface before the huge tectonic events that kicked off Noah's Flood ... and that was why all of the land was totally inundated by massive global tsunamis as well as a general rise in sea level caused by the catastrophic release of sub-terranean waters, the remnants of which are our cave systems and the great artesian basins of the World.


  • #4877
    Harika
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,594 ✭✭✭Harika


    J C wrote: »
    Yes, Harika would need something like the Large Hadron Collider to do this ... and even then, the jury is still out on whether he might succeed.

    It's 1min30 then it should be clear, how easy it is, and that no LHC is needed.


  • #4878
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    J C wrote: »
    It is thought that the Earth had a much smoother surface before the huge tectonic events that kicked off Noah's Flood

    How long ago was this, just trying to figure out how long Everest has been sitting there :)


  • #4879
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    J C wrote: »
    Space is not 'nothing' and has matter embedded in it ... so it's expansion rate is indeed limited to the speed of light undr current physical laws.


    Whatever Harika does it will still be limited to c.

    If space has matter embedded in it, then it's not space at that particular location. Space by definition means a void - nothing, like deep space where galaxies are separated from each other by millions of light years.


  • #4880
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    Harika wrote: »
    It's 1min30 then it should be clear, how easy it is, and that no LHC is needed.

    Ah, someone has put up a matchstick man video on you-tube.

    Again, back to my example of the man standing on the mountain. Do you really think you flick a laser beam across half the entire universe in less than a second?


  • #4881
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    steamengine wrote: »
    If space has matter embedded in it, then it's not space at that particular location. Space by definition means a void - nothing, like deep space where galaxies are separated from each other by millions of light years.

    That's not the current thinking. It's why space can be warped due to large masses/gravity. Don't get vacuum mixed up with nothing.


  • Advertisement
  • #4882
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robdonn wrote: »
    But space is not the objects it contains, the speed of light uses space as the medium matter and energy travel within but it is not matter and energy. (At least not the type of energy that is restricted by c)
    The observed expansion of spacetime doesn't violate c ... and it isn't even theoretically possible ... except when the current laws are not operating ... which would be the case at the moment of Creation ... or the Big Bang, if you are atheistically enclined.:)
    robdonn wrote: »
    Quantum entanglement also does not break c as there is no velocity. Nothing is moving in space between the particles.
    ... but 'something' is 'moving' between the particles as they can communicate instantly with each other ... and that 'something' is violating the current physical laws of the Universe ... and especially, c.


  • #4883
    Harika
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,594 ✭✭✭Harika


    Avatar MIA wrote: »
    Ah, someone has put up a matchstick man video on you-tube.

    Again, back to my example of the man standing on the mountain. Do you really think you flick a laser beam across half the entire universe in less than a second?

    This depends, it takes billions of years for the laser pointer to reach the end of the visible universe. And there is no point it will project on. So at the end it will come back to the now non existing earth that was swallowed by the sun long ago.
    Or if I can move a laser pointer in a 180 percent angle in less than a second around. (I can)


  • #4884
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    J C wrote: »
    You're corrrect that it is the 'bumpiness' of the surface of the Earth that ensures we have any dry land at all.
    It is thought that the Earth had a much smoother surface before the huge tectonic events that kicked off Noah's Flood ... and that was why all of the land was totally inundated by massive global tsunamis as well as a general rise in sea level caused by the catastrophic release of sub-terranean waters, the remnants of which are our cave systems and the great artesian basins of the World.

    And what is the evidence for this? If we go back to Mount Everest, we have measured it to be growing at roughly 0.1576 inches a year. Push that back 10,000 years and it shrinks by about 40 metres, a negligible height distance.

    To say that the Earth was smoother a few thousand years ago, at least anywhere near the extent that you propose, you would need to show some evidence for huge acceleration and deceleration in tectonic activities.


  • #4885
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    Harika wrote: »
    This depends, it takes billions of years for the laser pointer to reach the end of the visible universe. And there is no point it will project on. So at the end it will come back to the now non existing earth that was swallowed by the sun long ago.
    Or if I can move a laser pointer in a 180 percent angle in less than a second around. (I can)

    I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.


  • #4886
    Harika
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,594 ✭✭✭Harika


    Avatar MIA wrote: »
    I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

    On which part?


  • #4887
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    Harika wrote: »
    On which part?

    That when you swish a laser across an object in the far distance from one point to another light has covered all the space of the arc that you have moved across.


  • #4888
    Harika
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,594 ✭✭✭Harika


    Avatar MIA wrote: »
    That when you swish a laser across an object in the far distance from one point to another light has covered all the space of the arc that you have moved across.

    Light has not, but the projected picture of the light has. Again, there is the video that shows it better, if you don't want to know, there is nothing I can do for you.


  • #4889
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    Harika wrote: »
    Light has not, but the projected picture of the light has.

    And what is projected picture, but light. To my mind it's the same thing as flashing a light at the east side of the moon turning off the laser and turning it back on once you've moved it to the west side of the moon and saying you gone 20 times the speed of light.


  • #4890
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    Avatar MIA wrote: »
    Ah, someone has put up a matchstick man video on you-tube.

    Again, back to my example of the man standing on the mountain. Do you really think you flick a laser beam across half the entire universe in less than a second?

    Theoretically, if there was a giant panoramic screen at the same distance as the moon and it completely encircled the earth, you stood at the North or South Pole and swished your lazer light right round the screen in 1 second, then the spot would travel at a speed greater than that of light.


  • Advertisement
  • #4891
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    J C wrote: »
    The observed expansion of spacetime doesn't violate c ... and it isn't even theoretically possible ... except when the current laws are not operating ... which would be the case at the moment of Creation ... or the Big Bang, if you are atheistically enclined.:)

    The observed expansion of spacetime does not violate c because the speed limit of c does not apply to spacetime itself. There is no breaking of laws involved as the laws we are talking about do not apply.

    And just a minor point, one does not need to be "atheistically" inclined to understand and support the big bang theory. :P
    J C wrote: »
    ... but 'something' is 'moving' between the particles as they can communicate instantly with each other ... and that 'something' is violating the current physical laws of the Universe ... and especially, c.

    See, that's the really cool thing about quantum entanglement, there isn't 'something' 'moving' between them, it is not a chain reaction. The two particles change simultaneously. As the state of one particle is measured, the other particle changes properties at the exact same moment. There is no time between the two events and without time there is no speed. Without speed, how can it break a speed limit?


Advertisement