Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
 512 online now: AZPaul3, nwr, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (6 members, 506 visitors) Newest Member: FossilDiscovery Post Volume: Total: 893,200 Year: 4,312/6,534 Month: 526/900 Week: 50/182 Day: 22/16 Hour: 4/2

Author Topic:   Physical Laws ....What if they were different before?
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 754 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011

 Message 245 of 309 (664862) 06-06-2012 2:47 AM Reply to: Message 244 by PaulK06-06-2012 2:33 AM

Re: SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light
 If the vacuum energy (the zero point energy of a vacuum) was lower, light would travel faster because it would encounter fewer particles to slow it down. This is true, but only just - it would not affect the value of c, which assumes no particle interactions. So it would allow only a negligible increase in the observed speed of light.

How do you know the value of c? You only know it because it is measured by its current value. To me, the speed of light should be infinite in a true vacuum. Light from stars billions of light years away, should immediately be detected by radar telescopes the instant they leave the star in a true vacuum. Of course you will protest that e=mc2 dictates infinite energy for infinite speed of light. This equation was derived in the presence of the observed light speed of today. It states that energy is dependent upon the speed of light. This is true, but what if the speed of light were dependent upon the zero point energy? What if mass were dependent upon the zero point energy as well. I do believe it is according to setterfield the last time I read him. Not only are electron energy levels and their distance from the nucleus dependent upon the zero point energy, but mass is as well. When the zero point energy is low, the atomic particles don't get bombarded by that energy as much. When they don't wiggle around as much, those particles don't register as much mass as they do when they wiggle around a lot. The particles that have more energy are measured as having more mass. In summary: e=mc2 is not a problem with higher lightspeeds because the same reality that causes greater lightspeeds also causes lighter masses.

 This message is a reply to: Message 244 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2012 2:33 AM PaulK has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 249 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2012 5:28 AM foreveryoung has taken no action Message 255 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2012 10:12 AM foreveryoung has taken no action Message 256 by Taq, posted 06-06-2012 11:07 AM foreveryoung has taken no action Message 261 by Theodoric, posted 06-06-2012 1:08 PM foreveryoung has taken no action Message 262 by Trixie, posted 06-06-2012 1:31 PM foreveryoung has replied Message 289 by RAZD, posted 06-06-2012 6:51 PM foreveryoung has taken no action

foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 754 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011

 Message 246 of 309 (664863) 06-06-2012 2:55 AM Reply to: Message 243 by Coyote06-06-2012 2:31 AM

Re: Speed of Light: the Sequel
 Now, can you see why you should give the idea of changing constants a serious consideration into possibly being true?No, your "what ifs" are not evidence.

So, you will not consider looking into a matter if there is no evidence?

The evidence is actually there. It is called the bible. I am sorry you don't consider that to be evidence. If you dug into the ground and came upon a stone that was dated to be 2 billion years old and on its was engraved the following message, would you not look into to the possibility that the claims made on the story had any basis in reality? The message engraved on the stones said that it was written by the creator of the universe and that the stone was part of the bedrock sitting underneath the soil from which adam, the first human, was created from. I take it you would set about to see if the claims written upon the stone had any basis in reality? If so, why aren't you interested in seeing if the claims of the bible have in basis in reality? The former has no more evidence to go on than the latter in my opinion.

 This message is a reply to: Message 243 by Coyote, posted 06-06-2012 2:31 AM Coyote has taken no action

 Replies to this message: Message 248 by dwise1, posted 06-06-2012 3:16 AM foreveryoung has taken no action Message 251 by Granny Magda, posted 06-06-2012 7:34 AM foreveryoung has taken no action Message 257 by Taq, posted 06-06-2012 11:13 AM foreveryoung has taken no action Message 263 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2012 2:11 PM foreveryoung has replied Message 282 by jar, posted 06-06-2012 3:44 PM foreveryoung has taken no action

foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 754 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011

 Message 264 of 309 (664903) 06-06-2012 2:18 PM Reply to: Message 263 by NoNukes06-06-2012 2:11 PM

Re: Speed of Light: the Sequel
The bible is replete with God making claims to creation of the universe.

 This message is a reply to: Message 263 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2012 2:11 PM NoNukes has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 277 by Theodoric, posted 06-06-2012 3:05 PM foreveryoung has taken no action Message 279 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2012 3:21 PM foreveryoung has taken no action Message 281 by jar, posted 06-06-2012 3:25 PM foreveryoung has taken no action

foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 754 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011

 (1)
 Message 265 of 309 (664905) 06-06-2012 2:31 PM Reply to: Message 262 by Trixie06-06-2012 1:31 PM

Re: SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light
You really are a bitch aren't you?

 It doesn't matter what you think it should be. Have you seen the effect on the speed of light that belief has? Try going outside and shout real loud "Hey, Light, you should have infinite speed in a true vacuum". I tried it, it made not a smidgeon of a difference.

What the fuck does that sarcastic comment have to do with anything? Do you really think space is a true vacuum bitch? Can you prove it bitch? Are you so fucking dumb that you think just because you measure the speed of light to be 386,000 meters per second , that it must be the TRUE speed of light. Have you even considered that there might be some substance slowing it down? Of course you haven't you dumb fucking bitch. Instead of being sarcastic to people who have ideas beyond your tiny comprehension skills, try to understand why they have these ideas to begin with.

 This message is a reply to: Message 262 by Trixie, posted 06-06-2012 1:31 PM Trixie has taken no action

 Replies to this message: Message 266 by JonF, posted 06-06-2012 2:38 PM foreveryoung has replied Message 268 by Theodoric, posted 06-06-2012 2:43 PM foreveryoung has replied Message 270 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2012 2:47 PM foreveryoung has taken no action

foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 754 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011

 Message 267 of 309 (664908) 06-06-2012 2:41 PM Reply to: Message 266 by JonF06-06-2012 2:38 PM

Re: SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light
I gave a boatload of substantive last night and all you assholes can do is make sarcastic comments. You bastards and bitches are the ones who cannot say anything substantive.

 This message is a reply to: Message 266 by JonF, posted 06-06-2012 2:38 PM JonF has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 275 by JonF, posted 06-06-2012 3:00 PM foreveryoung has taken no action Message 278 by dwise1, posted 06-06-2012 3:16 PM foreveryoung has taken no action

foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 754 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011

 (1)
 Message 269 of 309 (664910) 06-06-2012 2:45 PM Reply to: Message 268 by Theodoric06-06-2012 2:43 PM

Re: SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light
I gave you a boatload of evidence you moron. I can't help it that you are stupid as hell.

 This message is a reply to: Message 268 by Theodoric, posted 06-06-2012 2:43 PM Theodoric has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 273 by Theodoric, posted 06-06-2012 2:53 PM foreveryoung has replied Message 283 by Admin, posted 06-06-2012 3:45 PM foreveryoung has taken no action

foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 754 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011

 Message 271 of 309 (664912) 06-06-2012 2:48 PM Reply to: Message 268 by Theodoric06-06-2012 2:43 PM

Re: SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light
I didn't do anything mysogynist either asshole. Are women immune from criticism? I give as I get it. If that bitch is going to talk to me that way, I will return the favor. I don't favor either sex when it comes to defending myself. Are you a sexist or something? Do you think women are too weak to handle cusswords? I treated just like I do the rest of you assholes. You either take back the misogynist comment or go to hell. You know that is an absolute lie. I am not misogynist in the least and you fucking know it. Get the fuck out of here with talk like that.

 This message is a reply to: Message 268 by Theodoric, posted 06-06-2012 2:43 PM Theodoric has taken no action

foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 754 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011

 Message 272 of 309 (664913) 06-06-2012 2:52 PM

If you guys are going to throw around accusations like candy be prepared to defend it. I was accused by the senile old man theodoric of being misogynistic toward trixie. I called her a bitch because she was being a bitch. I call men by much worse. I do not hate women. I hate anyone who treats me like all of you assholes do. I do not shut my mouth when it comes to a woman. She is treated on the same level as the rest of you. To me, it is sexist to treat her with kid gloves.

 Replies to this message: Message 280 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2012 3:24 PM foreveryoung has taken no action

foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 754 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011

 Message 274 of 309 (664915) 06-06-2012 2:54 PM Reply to: Message 273 by Theodoric06-06-2012 2:53 PM

Re: SN1987A -- part 2: correlations with the speed of light
I gave a solid argument for my ideas. You have yet to refute it. I am sorry you cannot tell the difference between solid arguments and imagination.

 This message is a reply to: Message 273 by Theodoric, posted 06-06-2012 2:53 PM Theodoric has taken no action

 Replies to this message: Message 276 by JonF, posted 06-06-2012 3:04 PM foreveryoung has taken no action

foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 754 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011

 (1)
 Message 284 of 309 (664925) 06-06-2012 4:29 PM Reply to: Message 283 by Admin06-06-2012 3:45 PM

Re: ForEverYoung Suspended 1 Month
What makes you think I want to come back in a month. You can all go to hell. Just keep this crap up and you won't have anyone to talk to but your elitest, conceited selves.

Foreveryoung

 This message is a reply to: Message 283 by Admin, posted 06-06-2012 3:45 PM Admin has seen this message

 Replies to this message: Message 285 by Tangle, posted 06-06-2012 5:02 PM foreveryoung has taken no action Message 286 by 1.61803, posted 06-06-2012 5:43 PM foreveryoung has taken no action Message 294 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-07-2012 8:07 AM foreveryoung has taken no action

foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 754 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011

 Message 308 of 309 (667584) 07-09-2012 10:47 PM

thread started by an imposter...not me
 I'm really glad to bought this charger£¡ (although it didn't help me do spam right)

That was the topic started by somebody who just appeared right after I got banned. It was mistaken for me because I did happen to reregister under the name fearandlowlife mocking the poster fearand loathing who originally reported me. However, I did not register again under this alphabetical name ab32 or something akin to that. All I know is that jar called that poster lower than whalesnot. I tend to agree. He was trying to pose as me. It certainly fooled the moderators. That still believe that name is me. Attention Administration: Please remove my name from that topic started by him posted above and another posts he may have made. I take full responsibility for the name fearandlowlife however.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

 Replies to this message: Message 309 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-09-2012 11:22 PM foreveryoung has taken no action

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)