Lake found on Mars

[Mitchapalooza]

That's why I'm convinced Brett knows he is wrong but just lies to himself for the sake of his religious beliefs.

I have no problem with anyone's religious beliefs but creationism is just too willfully ignorant for me to respect.

 

[remydat]

Brett don't care about your respect as long as his Space God grants him paradise.

That his Space God would require him to stop using the brain given to him is no cause for alarm.

 

[Houston]

What about light? We can see light that has traveled millions of years to get here.

 

[brett05]

This old Bill Hicks comedy always had me rolling.

None of that is what a creationist would say, but if it Helps BIll and his followers, by all means.

 

[brett05]

What about light? We can see light that has traveled millions of years to get here.

As you may or may not know, light is not a constant.

 

[Bears_804]

None of that is what a creationist would say, but if it Helps BIll and his followers, by all means.

:marshmallow:I can't anymore.

 

[LordKOTL]

If I recall Brett thinks carbon dating is inaccurate. So advanced dating techniques used by thousands of scientists in the 21st century are bullshit but some shepard in 2000 BC wrote humans living 900 years using sheep dung and that is legit.

...but is it 2 legit 2 quit? <insert groans here> </threadjack>

As you may or may not know, light is not a constant.

In a vacuum it sure as hell is.

 

[brett05]

In a vacuum it sure as hell is.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all

 

[LordKOTL]

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all

That article is nothing new. Light travelling though any lensing situation (matter or gravity) can only slow down, not speed up. Light cannot travel faster than C, and based on that article if antlything the cosmos is older, not younger.

Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk

 

[remydat]

Yeah Brett doesn't understand the implications of his own article.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Starlight_problem

Not to mention, creationists gave up the idea that light traveled faster early on and has been declining since then decades ago.

 

[brett05]

That article is nothing new. Light travelling though any lensing situation (matter or gravity) can only slow down, not speed up. Light cannot travel faster than C, and based on that article if antlything the cosmos is older, not younger.

Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk

If it can be slowed, it can be sped up. The question is can it go faster than ~300K k/hr. Theoretically yes.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160429-the-real-reasons-nothing-can-ever-go-faster-than-light

And the article points toward galaxies moving faster than the speed of light.

The Big Bang needs that to be true. That's not light, but it's stuff moving faster than light.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ab...g-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-intermediate

 

[modo]

If it can be slowed, it can be sped up. The question is can it go faster than ~300K k/hr. Theoretically yes.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160429-the-real-reasons-nothing-can-ever-go-faster-than-light

And the article points toward galaxies moving faster than the speed of light.

The Big Bang needs that to be true. That's not light, but it's stuff moving faster than light.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ab...g-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-intermediate

Things aren't travelling faster than light. Space is expanding between galaxies. In the traditional sense you can't launch a rocket and have it travel faster than light.

The galaxies themselves are not moving faster than light in the traditional sense. Space in between them is expanding. Think of two dots on a balloon. As the balloon expands, the dots themselves are not moving, the balloon is expanding so they appear to moving away from each other. They don't violate relativity because it is not motion in the traditional sense. No information in the observable universe is moving faster than light.

 

[remydat]

If it can be slowed, it can be sped up. The question is can it go faster than ~300K k/hr. Theoretically yes.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160429-the-real-reasons-nothing-can-ever-go-faster-than-light

And the article points toward galaxies moving faster than the speed of light.

The Big Bang needs that to be true. That's not light, but it's stuff moving faster than light.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ab...g-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-intermediate

It is simply incorrect to say if it can be slowed then it can be sped up. That has no scientific basis in reality. You can always slow something down by creating an obstacle for it which is what happens when light is slowed down. However, light has no mass hence why light can approach the speed of light. Other objects can't approach or exceed that speed because they have mass.

Also Brett confuses special and general relatively. In special relatively, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Special relativity is with respect to local laws of physics. In the case of a galaxy far away from us, it can be perceived as moving faster than the speed of light because it is far away and because space itself is expanding. The galaxy itself is not traveling faster than light but because the galaxy is far away and space itself is expanding, our perception is such that it appears to travel faster than light which is allowed under general relativity since that is a global effect with global meaning the medium through which something is traveling is creating the appearance of FTL travel.

This has zero implications with respect to light heading towards us as light heading towards us gets less and less far away and thus is a local effect and thus due to special relativity can't exceed the speed of light.

 

[modo]

An omnipotent observer in the Universe could point out that two objects in relation to what appears to be fixed points in space are "traveling faster than light" but you have to account for space as a whole and in that respect the surface that the galaxies are attached to is expanding. Mind you that space expansion does not violate relativity because information itself is not moving faster than light.

 

[remydat]

Yes it is the distinction in general relativity vs special relativity or global vs localized speed of light.

An Alcubierre Warp drive for example works by contracting space in front of it and expanding space behind it thus achieving apparent faster than light travel. The spacecraft is not actually exceeding the speed of light but rather it is affecting the space around it in such a way to draw the space in front of it closer to it as it travels and the space behind it away from it. So almost like it is playing tug of war with space itself.

 

[Houston]

As you may or may not know, light is not a constant.

Even if light could sometimes be speed up to 1000x the speed of light, you still have a lot of time left to account for.

 

[remydat]

Even if light could sometimes be speed up to 1000x the speed of light, you still have a lot of time left to account for.

If you read some of the wacky things creationist come up with then the speed of light is infinite in some theories.

 

[modo]

If you really want to get technical on this, virtual photons can travel for short distances faster than light, however it does not violate relativity because they do not transfer information because they cannot be directly observed in the traditional sense.

 

[brett05]

Things aren't travelling faster than light. Space is expanding between galaxies. In the traditional sense you can't launch a rocket and have it travel faster than light.

The galaxies themselves are not moving faster than light in the traditional sense. Space in between them is expanding. Think of two dots on a balloon. As the balloon expands, the dots themselves are not moving, the balloon is expanding so they appear to moving away from each other. They don't violate relativity because it is not motion in the traditional sense. No information in the observable universe is moving faster than light.

That's not what the Big Bang would say.

 

[modo]

We may find evidence that light did travel faster than gravity in the early Universe. Inflation explains why the Universe did what it did early on, and we have yet to find "proof" of inflation. One of the reasons why Guth has not won the Nobel prize yet. One of the issues with inflation is that right now it is not provable or unprovable. There are many different versions of inflation that can be tweaked to make it fit what is observed.

I know that at least a couple scientist are working on the idea. If that theory is true then it would explain away inflation as unnecessary, but it doesn't necessarily mean the universe is a few thousand years old. According to them it is potentially testable. Right now inflation is not. They tried to detect gravity waves that certain versions of inflation said would exist, but they did not find the signature that they were looking for. But lucky for inflation there are other versions of it that don't need those gravity waves.

Still inflation as a general whole works out mathematically and fits.