Christmas sermon. Trigger-warning - suck it up, snowflake
- cptrelentless
- Expatriate
- Posts: 3033
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 11:49 am
- Reputation: 565
- Location: Sihanoukville
Re: Christmas sermon. Trigger-warning - suck it up, snowflake
The atomic method of measuring things is the only accurate one we have, which is why all the SI standards have converted to it in some form. I believe JC existed, there were hundreds of people just like him nailed along most of the roads in Palestine when Pilate was running the place. I like Paul "Showgirls" Verhoeven's book on him, it's the most pragmatic description of him I've read
Sent from my LG-X240 using Tapatalk
Sent from my LG-X240 using Tapatalk
- StroppyChops
- The Missionary Man
- Posts: 10598
- Joined: Tue May 06, 2014 11:24 am
- Reputation: 1032
Re: Christmas sermon. Trigger-warning - suck it up, snowflake
Not wanting to split hairs, but perhaps "it's the method we currently believe to be most accurate" would be more precise.cptrelentless wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 3:03 pm The atomic method of measuring things is the only accurate one we have, which is why all the SI standards have converted to it in some form...
Until recently the speed of light was used as a constant, and all large-scale time-based measurement (including carbon dating) used it as a calculations constant. Recent findings (do your own Google research) show the speed of light to NOT be a constant, which in turn puts all measurement that uses it as a factor in question.
Bodge: This ain't Kansas, and the neighbours ate Toto!
- cptrelentless
- Expatriate
- Posts: 3033
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 11:49 am
- Reputation: 565
- Location: Sihanoukville
Re: Christmas sermon. Trigger-warning - suck it up, snowflake
The speed of light in a vacuum, which is the actual measure, is very much a constant. Hence E=mc2, where c is the speed of light in a vacuum. I think it was Rutherford who first measured it, might be wrong, but you have a box and empty out the gas and you measure it over a short distance. How well we can measure that constant, to what level of accuracy, is what keeps improving. So you know what it should be and the difference between that and your measurement of a distant star give you the the latest stuff they've been spotting, like blobs of dark matter and exo-planets and that stuff that was all theoretical. The current measurement of time is accurate to one second in 1,400,000 years. So you're looking at improving accuracies, up to the point it's so small you measuring the accuracy messes with your experiment, which is the current challenge. But they are very much extremely accurate at the moment. Otherwise all modern physics is bollocks, so which is the more likely scenario?StroppyChops wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:10 pmNot wanting to split hairs, but perhaps "it's the method we currently believe to be most accurate" would be more precise.cptrelentless wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 3:03 pm The atomic method of measuring things is the only accurate one we have, which is why all the SI standards have converted to it in some form...
Until recently the speed of light was used as a constant, and all large-scale time-based measurement (including carbon dating) used it as a calculations constant. Recent findings (do your own Google research) show the speed of light to NOT be a constant, which in turn puts all measurement that uses it as a factor in question.
- StroppyChops
- The Missionary Man
- Posts: 10598
- Joined: Tue May 06, 2014 11:24 am
- Reputation: 1032
Re: Christmas sermon. Trigger-warning - suck it up, snowflake
Which is great, if everything we're measuring exists in a vacuum, or we can drag it all into a lab and measure it in a vacuum.cptrelentless wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:28 pmThe speed of light in a vacuum, which is the actual measure, is very much a constant. Hence E=mc2, where c is the speed of light in a vacuum. I think it was Rutherford who first measured it, might be wrong, but you have a box and empty out the gas and you measure it over a short distance. How well we can measure that constant, to what level of accuracy, is what keeps improving. So you know what it should be and the difference between that and your measurement of a distant star give you the the latest stuff they've been spotting, like blobs of dark matter and exo-planets and that stuff that was all theoretical. The current measurement of time is accurate to one second in 1,400,000 years. So you're looking at improving accuracies, up to the point it's so small you measuring the accuracy messes with your experiment, which is the current challenge. But they are very much extremely accurate at the moment. Otherwise all modern physics is bollocks, so which is the more likely scenario?StroppyChops wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:10 pmNot wanting to split hairs, but perhaps "it's the method we currently believe to be most accurate" would be more precise.cptrelentless wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 3:03 pm The atomic method of measuring things is the only accurate one we have, which is why all the SI standards have converted to it in some form...
Until recently the speed of light was used as a constant, and all large-scale time-based measurement (including carbon dating) used it as a calculations constant. Recent findings (do your own Google research) show the speed of light to NOT be a constant, which in turn puts all measurement that uses it as a factor in question.
Edit:
These accepted journals (and others) discuss studies that explore whether the speed of light in a vacuum actually is a constant.
Science News: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/spe ... -after-all
Live Science: https://www.livescience.com/29111-speed ... stant.html
New Scientist: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -constant/
And yes, the suggestion would be that much of modern physics is bollocks - or at least miscalculated by wide margins - if this particular scenario proves correct.
Bodge: This ain't Kansas, and the neighbours ate Toto!
-
- Expatriate
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2014 11:36 am
- Reputation: 677
Re: Christmas sermon. Trigger-warning - suck it up, snowflake
But God is real? We have eternal, immutable souls?StroppyChops wrote:Which is great, if everything we're measuring exists in a vacuum, or we can drag it all into a lab and measure it in a vacuum.cptrelentless wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:28 pmThe speed of light in a vacuum, which is the actual measure, is very much a constant. Hence E=mc2, where c is the speed of light in a vacuum. I think it was Rutherford who first measured it, might be wrong, but you have a box and empty out the gas and you measure it over a short distance. How well we can measure that constant, to what level of accuracy, is what keeps improving. So you know what it should be and the difference between that and your measurement of a distant star give you the the latest stuff they've been spotting, like blobs of dark matter and exo-planets and that stuff that was all theoretical. The current measurement of time is accurate to one second in 1,400,000 years. So you're looking at improving accuracies, up to the point it's so small you measuring the accuracy messes with your experiment, which is the current challenge. But they are very much extremely accurate at the moment. Otherwise all modern physics is bollocks, so which is the more likely scenario?StroppyChops wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:10 pmNot wanting to split hairs, but perhaps "it's the method we currently believe to be most accurate" would be more precise.cptrelentless wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 3:03 pm The atomic method of measuring things is the only accurate one we have, which is why all the SI standards have converted to it in some form...
Until recently the speed of light was used as a constant, and all large-scale time-based measurement (including carbon dating) used it as a calculations constant. Recent findings (do your own Google research) show the speed of light to NOT be a constant, which in turn puts all measurement that uses it as a factor in question.
Edit:
These accepted journals (and others) discuss studies that explore whether the speed of light in a vacuum actually is a constant.
Science News: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/spe ... -after-all
Live Science: https://www.livescience.com/29111-speed ... stant.html
New Scientist: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -constant/
And yes, the suggestion would be that much of modern physics is bollocks - or at least miscalculated by wide margins - if this particular scenario proves correct.
Contradicts observable evolution.
I'll take the one I can see thanks.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
- StroppyChops
- The Missionary Man
- Posts: 10598
- Joined: Tue May 06, 2014 11:24 am
- Reputation: 1032
Re: Christmas sermon. Trigger-warning - suck it up, snowflake
For the sake of the ongoing discussion, yes, I believe God is real, and that we have souls - although I'm not sure of your meaning when you use the word immutable in this context. I'm also not sure how that belief in any way contradicts observable evolution, or what you mean by observable evolution (as opposed to natural selection).Barang chgout wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 7:13 pmBut God is real? We have eternal, immutable souls?StroppyChops wrote:Which is great, if everything we're measuring exists in a vacuum, or we can drag it all into a lab and measure it in a vacuum.cptrelentless wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:28 pmThe speed of light in a vacuum, which is the actual measure, is very much a constant. Hence E=mc2, where c is the speed of light in a vacuum. I think it was Rutherford who first measured it, might be wrong, but you have a box and empty out the gas and you measure it over a short distance. How well we can measure that constant, to what level of accuracy, is what keeps improving. So you know what it should be and the difference between that and your measurement of a distant star give you the the latest stuff they've been spotting, like blobs of dark matter and exo-planets and that stuff that was all theoretical. The current measurement of time is accurate to one second in 1,400,000 years. So you're looking at improving accuracies, up to the point it's so small you measuring the accuracy messes with your experiment, which is the current challenge. But they are very much extremely accurate at the moment. Otherwise all modern physics is bollocks, so which is the more likely scenario?StroppyChops wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:10 pmNot wanting to split hairs, but perhaps "it's the method we currently believe to be most accurate" would be more precise.cptrelentless wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 3:03 pm The atomic method of measuring things is the only accurate one we have, which is why all the SI standards have converted to it in some form...
Until recently the speed of light was used as a constant, and all large-scale time-based measurement (including carbon dating) used it as a calculations constant. Recent findings (do your own Google research) show the speed of light to NOT be a constant, which in turn puts all measurement that uses it as a factor in question.
Edit:
These accepted journals (and others) discuss studies that explore whether the speed of light in a vacuum actually is a constant.
Science News: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/spe ... -after-all
Live Science: https://www.livescience.com/29111-speed ... stant.html
New Scientist: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -constant/
And yes, the suggestion would be that much of modern physics is bollocks - or at least miscalculated by wide margins - if this particular scenario proves correct.
Contradicts observable evolution.
I'll take the one I can see thanks.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
On a side note, can you point to an example in the post you responded to of a comment about God? Or eternity? The post you're responding to is ONLY about whether the speed of light (in a vacuum or otherwise) is a constant.
I struggle at times to identify which of the logical fallacies people use in this sort of discussion - it's either a strawman fallacy or a false dichotomy in this case. Maybe a combination.
Perhaps its reductio ad absurdum - "Oh, I don't agree with what he posted, so let's reduce it (in this case to something else) so we can ridicule it."
Bodge: This ain't Kansas, and the neighbours ate Toto!
-
- Expatriate
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2014 11:36 am
- Reputation: 677
Re: Christmas sermon. Trigger-warning - suck it up, snowflake
Ok. I give up!
God is real!
Dammit, there I was believing in science!
I guess you live and learn....
or not.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
God is real!
Dammit, there I was believing in science!
I guess you live and learn....
or not.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
- StroppyChops
- The Missionary Man
- Posts: 10598
- Joined: Tue May 06, 2014 11:24 am
- Reputation: 1032
Re: Christmas sermon. Trigger-warning - suck it up, snowflake
Definitely strawman fallacy! You do realise you in no way responded to a valid question, right?Barang chgout wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 7:35 pm Ok. I give up!
God is real!
Dammit, there I was believing in science!
I guess you live and learn....
or not.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
Bodge: This ain't Kansas, and the neighbours ate Toto!
Re: Christmas sermon. Trigger-warning - suck it up, snowflake
I recall reading about that but i didnt want to bring it up since i didnt have the original source on hand. The most interesting thing i remember seeing that anyone could understand was not just the accuracy of the measurments of the speed of light improving but the mean was actually decreasing. I have the presentation somewhere at home and it was by a fellow aussie physicist i believe but there was a very clear regression curve taken from various sources over the last 300 years or so.StroppyChops wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:10 pm Until recently the speed of light was used as a constant, and all large-scale time-based measurement (including carbon dating) used it as a calculations constant. Recent findings (do your own Google research) show the speed of light to NOT be a constant, which in turn puts all measurement that uses it as a factor in question.
Come on mate youre not even trying, youre just parroting memes at this point.Barang chgout wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 7:35 pm Ok. I give up!
God is real!
Dammit, there I was believing in science!
I guess you live and learn....
or not
-
- Expatriate
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2014 11:36 am
- Reputation: 677
Re: Christmas sermon. Trigger-warning - suck it up, snowflake
Read more, judge less. Let go of the fear of having no soul.StroppyChops wrote:Definitely strawman fallacy! You do realise you in no way responded to a valid question, right?Barang chgout wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 7:35 pm Ok. I give up!
God is real!
Dammit, there I was believing in science!
I guess you live and learn....
or not.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
One day you will die and then, you will not realise this as you shall be dead.
Your soul does not exist and will not carry on, no matter how you fight to defend the unreal.
Enjoy your perception mate.
Gotta love unicorns!
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 30 Replies
- 5260 Views
-
Last post by Arget
-
- 32 Replies
- 15247 Views
-
Last post by Big Daikon
-
- 0 Replies
- 2379 Views
-
Last post by Arget
-
- 16 Replies
- 3255 Views
-
Last post by Ghostwriter
-
- 31 Replies
- 9966 Views
-
Last post by Jamie_Lambo
-
- 3 Replies
- 1895 Views
-
Last post by techietraveller84
-
- 6 Replies
- 1707 Views
-
Last post by hanno
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Arget, armchairlawyer, barang_TK, Giri, Jerry Atrick, khmerhamster, Majestic-12 [Bot], Ozinasia, Province, Semrush [Bot], Zyzz and 729 guests