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...

StroppyChops wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:10 pm

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...

Not wanting to split hairs, but perhaps "it's the method we currently believe to be most accurate" would be more precise.

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.

cptrelentless wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:28 pm

StroppyChops wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:10 pm

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...

Not wanting to split hairs, but perhaps "it's the method we currently believe to be most accurate" would be more precise.

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.

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:

cptrelentless wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:28 pm

StroppyChops wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:10 pm

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...

Not wanting to split hairs, but perhaps "it's the method we currently believe to be most accurate" would be more precise.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Barang chgout wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 7:13 pm

StroppyChops wrote:

cptrelentless wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:28 pm

StroppyChops wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:10 pm

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...

Not wanting to split hairs, but perhaps "it's the method we currently believe to be most accurate" would be more precise.

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.

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?

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.

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.

But God is real? We have eternal, immutable souls?
Contradicts observable evolution.
I'll take the one I can see thanks.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

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

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.

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

StroppyChops wrote:

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

Definitely strawman fallacy! You do realise you in no way responded to a valid question, right?