Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 527 of 687 (524469)
09-16-2009 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 523 by ICANT
09-16-2009 12:16 PM


Re: Re Light
Not in agreement yet.
Lets speed up that other 0.1% so we are traveling at the speed of light
Let's not since travelling at the speed of light is not the case I am asking you about.
In the example I gave, what do you think we would measure the speed of light travelling away from us at?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by ICANT, posted 09-16-2009 12:16 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 532 by Izanagi, posted 09-17-2009 11:31 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 535 by ICANT, posted 09-17-2009 11:59 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 548 of 687 (524721)
09-18-2009 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 535 by ICANT
09-17-2009 11:59 PM


Re: Re Light
So, in short, you are either unwilling or unable to answer my question? You seem absolutely intent on changing the question every time I ask it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 535 by ICANT, posted 09-17-2009 11:59 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 549 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 10:25 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 550 of 687 (524741)
09-18-2009 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 549 by ICANT
09-18-2009 10:25 AM


Re: Re Light
But I did answer your question.
Just not accordingly to your expectations.
According to relativity I am supposed to say the light is leaving us at the speed of light.
It is not about what you are supposed to say, it is about finding out what you think and then comparing that with observation to see how they match up.
Your stop/start example is once again a separate case that involves extreme acceleration. I'm not talking about acceleration, so your bringing it up doesn't answer my question which deals with constant velocities.
Thus the light is pulling away from us by 299,792.458 meters per second.
To clarify - are you suggesting that you agree that the light is leaving us at the speed of light even if we are travelling at very high speeds ourselves? That is after all, what we observe to happen when we are travelling at 30kms.
If you do concede that we observe the light to be travelling away from us at the speed of light when we are travelling at high speeds, could you go back to Message 483 and answer some of the seeming paradoxes such a position invokes? When I originally asked them you attempted to 'derail' the conversation with inanity. They are key to me understanding your position - so if you want me to understand you I'd be much obliged if you could go back and actually tackle them.
If, on the other hand, you are not conceding that we observe the light to be leaving us at he speed of light, then I'd be keen to hear how you explain the observations that run counter to your position.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 10:25 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 552 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 12:33 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 557 of 687 (524770)
09-18-2009 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 552 by ICANT
09-18-2009 12:33 PM


Re: Re Light
I will concede the light is traveling at the speed of light.
But the light is only traveling away from us by 299,792.458 meters per second.
OK, so if we slowed things down, lets say to 30kms-1, do you propose that the light will only be travelling away from us at 299,762,458 ms-1? And if we were travelling 30kms-1 in the opposite direction would we measure the speed of light travelling away from us at 299,822,488ms-1 ?
But since you keep rewriting definitions for words why don't you take the time to put together a new dictionary of the english language so we can all know the cavediver meaning of words. Rather than the meanings that we can find presently given for the words.
The definition of acceleration is quite well defined as it is, look it up.
Edited by Modulous, : whoopsie on the maths.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 552 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 12:33 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 581 of 687 (525064)
09-21-2009 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 552 by ICANT
09-18-2009 12:33 PM


Light
Using your numbers. You can not observe the signal moving away from you at 300,000 kms. Because you are traveling in the opposite direction at 150,000 kms for a total of 450,000 kms. Unless you stop.
The speed of light is 300,000 kms so from the point the message was sent it is traveling 300,000 kms and that is the reason it covers one light year in one light year.
Because you were traveling 150,000 kms in the opposite direction has no effect on the speed of light.
To clarify this point, I meant to make it clear that the ship was approaching earth. If the light seems to be travelling from them at 300,000km/s and they seem to be travelling towards earth at 150,000km/s then it should take less than a year for the light to travel a year.
It seems your opinion is that they would actually measure the light travelling away from them at 150,000km/s which is fine, but it disagrees with observation so you need to explain how this occurs.
What is there to square?
It seems at the moment you need to square your belief that some observers will measure the speed of light as travelling at a variable relative speed to them depending on their own movement with the fact that that we've performed the experiment and discovered that they don't, the always measure the speed of light to be the same regardless of whether they are rushing towards the photons, or travelling in the same direction as them at some speed. They will always pass us at 300,000km/s.
I appreciate that if I am heading towards a train in a car at 100mph relative and the train is moving at 100mph and there are 200 miles that separate us then I will see that we meet after 1 hour. So the train was approaching at a rate of 200mph relative to me.
Observation shows that this doesn't happen with light. This has significant ramifications which are relevant to the topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 552 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 12:33 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 592 by ICANT, posted 09-22-2009 6:00 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 601 of 687 (525339)
09-23-2009 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 592 by ICANT
09-22-2009 6:00 PM


Re: Light
Well if relativity as it has been explained to me in this thread is correct the light is traveling 300,000 m/s from the ship. When you add that the ship is traveling towards the earth at 150,000 m/s you have light traveling at 450,000 m/s
Since the maximum speed of light is 300,000 m/s something is wrong with the theory.
Would you care to explain what that problem is to me?
OK, so according to relativity it is leaving at 300,000 km/s, and you are right - this results in something that appears paradoxical. There is a solution to this paradox which I will come to.
Are you talking about something that is observed with the natural eye?
We've performed the experiment. While travelling at 30km/s towards and away from a source of light, the speed of light was still measured to be 300,000km/s.
This being the case, do you agree that this would result in some unusual scenarios as described in Message 483? If so, do you have an answers as to whose observations are the correct ones? Does your cosmological model have a solution to the issues at hand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 592 by ICANT, posted 09-22-2009 6:00 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 604 by ICANT, posted 09-23-2009 9:47 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 606 of 687 (525416)
09-23-2009 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 604 by ICANT
09-23-2009 9:47 AM


Re: Light
Do we have a craft that man can get in and travel towards a beam of light or with a beam of light at 67,108 mph?
No, but we do have a hunk of rock that does travel at that kind of speed. We call it earth and it is large enough for billions of men to get on and travel towards any number of beams of light.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 604 by ICANT, posted 09-23-2009 9:47 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 609 by ICANT, posted 09-23-2009 10:25 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 610 of 687 (525676)
09-24-2009 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 609 by ICANT
09-23-2009 10:25 PM


Re: Light
So we fire a beam of light from this rock we are on, do we have a speedometer hooked to it to tell us how fast it is going?
In other words how do we measure the speed of the light leaving us?
Or, we travel towards some kind of source of light and measure the speed of light as it comes towards us.
Is there any particular methods of measuring the speed of light you don't like? Any methods that haven't been tried that you do like?
I know what your conclusion would be if you didn't accept any measurements. What I would like to know is would it change your view of the cosmos at all if you accepted them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 609 by ICANT, posted 09-23-2009 10:25 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 611 by ICANT, posted 09-24-2009 1:00 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 616 of 687 (525828)
09-24-2009 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 611 by ICANT
09-24-2009 1:00 PM


Re: Light
Or, we travel towards some kind of source of light and measure the speed of light as it comes towards us.
Well that is not what you was talking about.
I was talking about measuring the speed of light when one is travelling at some speed.
quote:
It seems at the moment you need to square your belief that some observers will measure the speed of light as travelling at a variable relative speed to them depending on their own movement with the fact that that we've performed the experiment and discovered that they don't, the always measure the speed of light to be the same regardless of whether they are rushing towards the photons, or travelling in the same direction as them at some speed. They will always pass us at 300,000km/s.
I appreciate that if I am heading towards a train in a car at 100mph relative and the train is moving at 100mph and there are 200 miles that separate us then I will see that we meet after 1 hour. So the train was approaching at a rate of 200mph relative to me.
So far you have done everything in your power to keep from answering the question.
You only asked me how they measured it once, and you asked how they measured something that I wasn't saying they measured. What I am asking you is, what difference does the methodology for measuring the speed of light make?
Now - in an attempt to move things forwards, at least provisionally, can I ask you again. Let us assume that you agree that whatever method they used to measure the speed of light coming towards earth and that it does reveal that the speed of light is measured as the same regardless of your own speed. Do you agree that this would mean you would have to change your understanding of the cosmos?
You are the one saying the signal/light is leaving us at 300,000 km/s which reality proves to be false.
Do you know of an experiment which has measured the speed of light leaving us? If not, how can you say that reality proves this as false?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 611 by ICANT, posted 09-24-2009 1:00 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 632 by ICANT, posted 09-28-2009 12:29 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 634 of 687 (526588)
09-28-2009 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 632 by ICANT
09-28-2009 12:29 PM


ICANT's position, please answer the questions about it
Yes, from a earth traveling at 67,108 mph.
No, that is only one possibility. I was talking generally, so that includes the above but also includes to the earth which is travelling at speed.
So all I wanted to know was how we measure the speed of the signal leaving the spaceship which is traveling at 150,000 km/s headed towards earth.
There is no such spaceship that I am aware of. I'm just talking about the light coming from nearby stars. And further, could you please explain to me why the methodology is of importance to this discussion?
We provided a thought experiment earlier in our conversation.
The one where I was going the speed of light and you were one second behind me and turned on your light. I was traveling at 300,000 km/s and the light was one second behind me at 300,000 km/s.
You said the light could never catch me. Are you now changing your mind?
You should specify what you are talking about since numerous experiments, thought and otherwise have been discussed. You did not answer the question, however, about how reality proves it as false.
But yes, the light would never catch up to you. I am not changing my mind.
If it can't catch me from behind it can't run off and leave me if you are sitting right beside me either.
Unless you have an explanation of how it can.
As I said several times, travelling at the speed of light is an important special case that is not relevant to what I am trying to ask you about. We can come back to your questions after we have addressed something a little more basic first:
If we were travelling towards a star at 30 km/s and we measure the light travelling towards us from that star as being exactly the same speed as when we measure it as we travel away from a star at 30km/s...do you agree that this leads to all the unusual effects highlighted in the thought experiments that I described? If so, how do you account for them? Who is right in their observations? Why?
Remember, this thread is about ICANT's position, not mine. So don't counter with questions about my position. Just answer the questions I am asking because they will help clarify what your position actually is for me.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 632 by ICANT, posted 09-28-2009 12:29 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 636 by ICANT, posted 09-28-2009 7:14 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 644 of 687 (526713)
09-29-2009 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 636 by ICANT
09-28-2009 7:14 PM


Again....
I can clarify my position for you. I don't have one yet.
You seem to have a definite position with regards to space and time. That is tightly related to the discussion on the speed of light. So again, do you agree that if the speed of light was constantly measured the same regardless of the observer - then this would result in the unusual circumstances I raised 200 posts ago in Message 483? Specifically of interest is the laser on a train experiment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 636 by ICANT, posted 09-28-2009 7:14 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 647 by Guiri, posted 09-29-2009 5:04 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024