• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Why is Light the Fastest?


  • Please log in to reply
163 replies to this topic

#151 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 18 May 2010 - 12:20 AM

And one more thing, not that I believe in God(s), actually I don't, I believe in creator(s), but you need to realize you do not have right to crush others' belief, because believe me or not, what you believe is truth on this matter, may as well turn out to be a belief.

I don't think Duke meant any disrespect, but I'd like to address the business of crushing beliefs. ImmInst is a forum of knowledge and ideas. When it's functioning at its best, information, ideas, and beliefs are examined along with the logic and evidence for and against them. Sometimes an idea is supported by the evidence, and sometimes it is not. Sometimes it is invalidated by the evidence. This certainly shouldn't be taken as a mean-spirited "crushing" of a person's idea or belief, as it's really the role of the forum. If anyone has ideas or beliefs that they do not want to be questioned, they probably shouldn't post them here.

#152 ken_akiba

  • Guest
  • 199 posts
  • -1
  • Location:USA for now but a Japanese national

Posted 18 May 2010 - 02:24 AM

I read some of his posts. Frankly I think he meant disrespect. His very username is far from respect. And If anyone is immature enough to believe that the existence or non-existance of God is a matter that could be validated by evidence let alone evidence presented in one book, she/he probably shouldn't post here, even a director.

Anyway this is the furthest thing in my mind when I revived this thread.
On-topic discussion, anyone? I would appreciate a responce or two on my Post #143 as well :-)

Edited by ken_akiba, 18 May 2010 - 02:30 AM.


#153 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 18 May 2010 - 02:58 AM

I read some of his posts. Frankly I think he meant disrespect. His very username is far from respect. And If anyone is immature enough to believe that the existence or non-existance of God is a matter that could be validated by evidence let alone evidence presented in one book, she/he probably shouldn't post here, even a director.

Anyway this is the furthest thing in my mind when I revived this thread.
On-topic discussion, anyone? I would appreciate a responce or two on my Post #143 as well :-)

Ken, we can agree to disagree about whether or not he meant any disrespect, but regarding his username, you probably aren't aware that our own Duke is the creator of the Duke Nukem series of video games, so I think he's earned the use of the name. I don't think anyone here is immature enough, if you insist on using that term, to think that a concept like God can proved or disproved by evidence. The fact remains, this is the Physics & Space subforum of the Science & Technology forum. We have a Religion & Spirituality forum which might be a better place for discussions of Gods/creators. I'm in favor of keeping on topic, but the last 10 posts are responses to #143 and its sequelae.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#154 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 18 May 2010 - 03:23 AM

you do not have right to crush others' belief


yes, you actually do (if you can). You don't have a right to insult people personally (on this forum).

I've had a few of my beliefs crushed. I consider that nothing but a favor. It's good to know when you're wrong.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 18 May 2010 - 03:26 AM.


#155 ken_akiba

  • Guest
  • 199 posts
  • -1
  • Location:USA for now but a Japanese national

Posted 18 May 2010 - 03:29 AM

you do not have right to crush others' belief


yes, you actually do (if you can). You don't have a right to insult people personally (on this forum).


you have right to crush others' belief. maybe right.
you have right to crush others' religious belief. no.
You don't have a right to insult people personally (on this forum). right though I don't to see relevance.

Edited by ken_akiba, 18 May 2010 - 03:45 AM.


#156 ken_akiba

  • Guest
  • 199 posts
  • -1
  • Location:USA for now but a Japanese national

Posted 18 May 2010 - 03:43 AM

DukeNukem is the creator of the Duke Nukem series of video games. If so, I respect his choice of username.
However whether a creator of such controversial game fits as a director for a cause of this nature, is another matter.

But then again who am I to speak of him or of imminst, knowing so little about its nature. Now back to Post #143, please?

#157 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 18 May 2010 - 03:52 AM

you do not have right to crush others' belief

yes, you actually do (if you can). You don't have a right to insult people personally (on this forum).

you do not have right to crush others' belief. maybe right.
you do not have right to crush others' religious belief. right.
You don't have a right to insult people personally (on this forum). right though I don't to see relevance.

I think that we are mis-communicating on this topic. "Do yourself a favor" is an American idiom that means something like "try this, you'll be glad you did". It's not normally thought of as a condescending statement. The word "crush" as used here implies a violent or mean-spirited destruction. When someone corrects an erroneous belief that I held, I look on it as "enlightenment", not "crushing". Correcting a wrong belief is doing me a favor; I love it when that happens because it means my future decisions will be better. Finally, to imply that someone is "immature" is generally viewed as an insult, although there are times when it is appropriate.

#158 ken_akiba

  • Guest
  • 199 posts
  • -1
  • Location:USA for now but a Japanese national

Posted 18 May 2010 - 04:31 AM

I think that we are mis-communicating on this topic. "Do yourself a favor" is an American idiom that means something like "try this, you'll be glad you did". It's not normally thought of as a condescending statement.
I think I am quite apt to subtle connotations of English usage, thank you. "Do yourself a favor" was a condescender in any stretch in the context above.

The word "crush" as used here implies a violent or mean-spirited destruction. When someone corrects an erroneous belief that I held, I look on it as "enlightenment", not "crushing".
Tell good people with traditional religion, especially Judeo Christian, that God is created by man, (their feeling being) 'crushed' will be an understatement, not to mention the notion that God is created by man is not enlightenment, it is an unprovable cliche.

Correcting a wrong belief is doing me a favor; I love it when that happens because it means my future decisions will be better.
Maybe. But what's the relevance here? Who is anyone to 'correct' anyone's belief, especially that of religion? And I personally wouldn't even attempt it, because there always is a posiibility that what I wholeheartedly believe objectively correct, may well turn out to be a subjective belief in the end, religion or not.

Finally, to imply that someone is "immature" is generally viewed as an insult, although there are times when it is appropriate.
I think it was one of those times.

Further discussion of this nature, you may PM me.

Back to topic, please?

Edited by ken_akiba, 18 May 2010 - 04:33 AM.


#159 Reno

  • Guest
  • 584 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Somewhere

Posted 18 May 2010 - 05:10 AM

For some reason I thought they had discovered that there were tachyon particles that traveled faster than light.

Religion is one of those tricky subjects which is for the most part better left up to the individual to figure out on their own. Who am I to tell someone that the big green cactus, or big purple elephant didn't create the universe. The answer to what did, or who did create the universe is for all intents and purposes an unanswerable question. Ignorance is bliss. Let those of us who can have faith enjoy it. Those of us who can't just believe such a thing will die with the satisfaction the the rest of the population is diluted.

Yes, I believe in a creator or creators (But I do not believe in God(s) in religion because I believe religion is created by man :-)

And so are gods, my friend. Do yourself a favor, and read this book:
http://is.gd/cdwG1


Holy crap, "I've got balls of steel!" I never thought I would run into the creator of the dukenukem games on here.

Edited by Reno, 18 May 2010 - 05:10 AM.


#160 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 18 May 2010 - 05:56 AM

Religion is one of those tricky subjects which is for the most part better left up to the individual to figure out on their own. Who am I to tell someone that the big green cactus, or big purple elephant didn't create the universe. The answer to what did, or who did create the universe is for all intents and purposes an unanswerable question. Ignorance is bliss. Let those of us who can have faith enjoy it. Those of us who can't just believe such a thing will die with the satisfaction the the rest of the population is diluted.

Yeah, religion is a tough one. I really don't want to bum someone out; if they say "my religion gives me great comfort", I'm cool with that. When someone posts in a science forum, saying that God created the Earth in seven days, or God created whatever, then they should expect to be questioned. If they don't want to be questioned about such assertions, they should place such posts in a Creationist forum instead. I guess that sounds kind of harsh, but I'm not saying it to be mean or unwelcoming. I'm saying it because this is a place where things are questioned. If something can't be questioned, we can't have much of a discussion about it, and discussion is the purpose of forums. Most of our members don't want to be told that they aren't allowed to speak their mind on a topic. Placing an unquestionable post here is like censoring anyone who might want to question it. We have a wide variety of people here, including many people of faith. One thing that seems nearly universal about all of them is that they don't like to be censored.

#161 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 18 May 2010 - 11:48 AM

Holy crap, "I've got balls of steel!" I never thought I would run into the creator of the dukenukem games on here.

Guess, it's kind of ironic when you meet one of the founding fathers of brutal electronic entertainment ( which I totally dig ) in an institute dedicated to "conquering the blight of involuntary death" :) . "It's time to kick ass and time to chew bubble gum. And I'm all out of gum". Sorry for off top.

Edited by chris w, 18 May 2010 - 12:17 PM.


#162 ken_akiba

  • Guest
  • 199 posts
  • -1
  • Location:USA for now but a Japanese national

Posted 18 May 2010 - 12:21 PM

Exitence of Tachyon has been theorized for a long long time, but actual particle is not yet detected. This of course doen't mean it doesn't exist. I'd love to see a Nobel prize go to the discoverer of Tachyon (but I wouldn't hold my breath).

And in all fairness to the purple elephant :-) I'd like to point out that there is not a single theory that even remotely touches the ture origin or beginning of the universe (or multiverse). All current theories necessitate pre-Big Bang or pre-existing universe and how did that universe come about? Maybe by a purple elephant ?

Matryoshka dolls (Russian dolls) are the current theories and btw string theory is worst at that.

#163 Esoparagon

  • Guest
  • 227 posts
  • 32
  • Location:Australia

Posted 02 June 2010 - 06:58 AM

It's a wave and a particle at the same time with no mass.

#164 ChromodynamicGirl

  • Guest
  • 134 posts
  • -87
  • Location:Lake Oswego, Oregon

Posted 12 October 2010 - 04:56 AM

Alright, isn't it obvious that if black holes swallow light, something must be faster than light? [huh]


I speak as a non-scientist, so I don't know what is the faster thing, why or how, these are merely thoughts.

-Infernity

Light goes at the speed it does because quantum interference patterns cancel out all light not moving in a roughly straight line at the speed C. The speed C ('light speed') is what it is because that's how fast something can possibly (and must) move when it has no rest mass, the existence of any mass immediately kicks you down below C.

That's just how the math of the Universe works. There is no real 'reason' for it, that's just the world we live in.

Tachyons are meaningless, they stop existing before they're emitted, even if they did 'exist'. Quantum entanglement interpretations involving FTL transmission of information is also irrelevant, since it's invariably canceled out by quantum interference.

All objects travel at all speeds, in backwards curly-qs 25 times the speed of light, and so forth. But when you map them do a Feynman diagram, only those moving in straight lines with a certain momentum related to their possible energy states remain.

Edited by ChromodynamicGirl, 12 October 2010 - 04:59 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users