Creation vs. Evolution

[Soggy]

So your saying that they can't understand, or rationalize something like theoretical physics when it's explained to them? I wonder who explained it to them? Or, that because they don't immediately understand scientific terminology they can't grasp it's meaning, and apply it in new and creative ways? Does education really equal intelligence? It seems that in many of the postlings in this thread, intelligence is deliberately measured by understanding terminology: do I really need to use that term, when I can simply explain what I mean? That seems to protective to me for some reason ... i'm not sure why.

That's a lot of questions, but it is unlikely that someone with a low level of understanding (like me, or you) will come up with new and creative ideas on how to apply relativistic concepts from thin air without a substantial background in it. That's not intelligence, that is education.

Yes, I know Einstein was working as a patent clerk...there are exceptions.

What's your favorite Steve Miller song?

I like the Joker

 

[Soggy]

But if you were to orbit Earth at that speed, how would it be anything more than a really fast ride?

That's the whole idea behind relativity. It's not just because it *takes* time for light to reach another location. This is not like us seeing the stars that went supernova millions of years ago. The act of moving through space at high velocity (or high energy) affects time. Space and time are inseparably linked.

While orbiting the earth at high velocity, you would be moving through time at a different rate than the people on earth, who, relative to you, are "stationary."

This is not science fiction, it is fact and is demonstrable.

I would suggest reading The Elegant Universe or Steven Hawking's A Brief History of Time if you want to get a better grip on this. I've forgotten a lot and need to brush up on it myself, as I'm sure I've made some mistakes in my explanations.

 

[Warthaug]

This is not theoretical, by the way, it is purely fact. It can be demonstrated with the use of atomic clocks. A clock put on a fast moving airplane will be off from a clock on the ground.

Not only is it not theoretical, but relativistic corrections are vital for some systems. For example, the signals for GPS are corrected for relativistic changes - both those induced by going real fast, as well as some induced by gravity.

If these corrections were not made GPS signals would fall behind (because clocks run appear to run faster on satellites than on the ground) by about 40 microseconds (there is 1000 microseconds per second) per day. To a human this is infantismal, but to a GPS receiver that's about 10km error per day!!!

Bryan

 

[Midnight Star]

So you're saying that traveling at the speed of light, perhaps orbiting the earth and landing again, would enable you to "time travel" into the future?
An edit to your edit....into the past, relative to yourself?

Here's the problem I see with that:

That particular theory is based on the relativity of time and space, and that not only matter defines space, but it's relativity to all other matter. So that when time is reversed, all "events" which have transpired, are also reversed ... traveling backward in time. That would imply that everything that has happened, from the creation of the universe to the thoughts your having right now, are a result not of individual intelligence or random events, but of a precise and predictable mathmatical model (from inception to end) - your thoughts inside your mind are the result of molecular interaction only, not the reverse (it happens because you think). If action and thought aren't tied to time and space (exactly relative to when and where it happens), how could it be reversed?

Understanding how traveling faster than the speed of light = outrunning the photons of reflected light from a planet traveling out into space, then looking back at the reflected light (the planet) in question = visually going back into time for the reflected object (this would only be "backwards in time" as compared to seeing the same reflected light from a stationary position - seeing "before the moment" as it would normally reach us), is a far leap from physically going back into time.

-----

Mike.

Edit: Added an additional note:

 

[Midnight Star]

...apply relativistic concepts from thin air without a substantial background in it. That's not intelligence, that is education

Actually, what I was referring to, was the ability of a poster to fully explain their respective points of view to others, with respect to the other posters knowledge or intelligence (if the "link poster" understands what they are linking to, they should also be able to quickly and easily explain it themselves), without the need of link after link after link - ie.,. go read this you "dummy", then when you do, come back and we'll see eye to eye. True in many instances, links are important refereces to information, but in this thread, it seems to be used more in lieu of a sarcastic "point" than anything else.

So you think you'll never be as smart (or even smarter) as Mr. Hawkins? or even Mr. Einstein? See, I think you could if you let go of educational endoctrination, and begin to think outside the box ... much like a simple patent clerk. See, back then, what was revolutionary, was eventually proven as fact (as is relative to us LOL!) - well most of it anyways.

-----

Mike.

 

[Uncle Pug]

you know, the more of that article i read, the more i say to myself "claptrap"************
it's impossible, Pug... can't happen

Obviously you didn't read the *article* or you wouldn't be asking the questions you are asking.

The writer explains each of your questions in detail. The reason you can't understand is because you don't want to understand. It really is quite simple.

*Following* a star means following the sign that it represented. The Magi were
astronomers of Babylon, most likely of Jewish descent. They saw the triple conjunction of Jupiter as its retro grade motion made a circle around Regulus... something they had never seen before nor would again. As it happened in the constellation of the Lion they took that as a sign that a king would be born to the Jews.

Traveling to Jerusalem they inquired about the newborn king foretold by the stars and those who heard them were perplexed but further inquiry reminded them of a prophecy that Messiah would be born in Bethlehem 5 miles South of Jerusalem.

As they journeyed to Bethlehem they would have seen Jupiter to the South *leading* the way. At that time (December 25th 3BC) they would have seen Jupiter do another retrograde motion and appear to be *standing over* Bethlehem as they continued on the way South.

Your assumption that the star was standing over a building probably comes from seeing a nativity scene somewhere as a child.

At any rate.... I certainly don't expect those with a vested interest in perpetuating a no-god belief system to be convinced by anything. Even if someone rose from the dead they wouldn't believe.

 

[Soggy]

That particular theory is based on the relativity of time and space, and that not only matter defines space, but it's relativity to all other matter. So that when time is reversed, all "events" which have transpired, are also reversed ... traveling backward in time. That would imply that everything that has happened, from the creation of the universe to the thoughts your having right now, are a result not of individual intelligence or random events, but of a precise and predictable mathmatical model (from inception to end) - your thoughts inside your mind are the result of molecular interaction only, not the reverse (it happens because you think). If action and thought aren't tied to time and space (exactly relative to when and where it happens), how could it be reversed?

You can "see problems" with that until you are blue in the face and none of it matters since one cannot reach the speed of light. That being said, what you just wrote doesn't make much sense anyhow.

 

[Midnight Star]

You can "see problems" with that until you are blue in the face and none of it matters since one cannot reach the speed of light. That being said, what you just wrote doesn't make much sense anyhow.

It makes perfect sense when you think about it - again with the indirect "dummy" reference?

-----

Mike.

 

[Soggy]

It makes perfect sense when you think about it - again with the indirect "dummy" reference?

No, I was not calling you a dummy. I was saying that your conclusions do not follow, but I don't really feel like getting into a Star Trek style temporal paradox argument. You have this tendency to just go off on random tangents that are unrelated to the topic at hand which makes it difficult to have a discussion.

The point was that your whole post was not within the realms of reality since one cannot go back in time, since the speed of light cannot be exceeded.

 

[Soggy]

So you think you'll never be as smart (or even smarter) as Mr. Hawkins? or even Mr. Einstein? See, I think you could if you let go of educational endoctrination, and begin to think outside the box ... much like a simple patent clerk. See, back then, what was revolutionary, was eventually proven as fact (as is relative to us LOL!) - well most of it anyways.

Even Einstein had a science degree when he did his initial work. He also had a lot of outside help. His work was revolutionary, but was not just a fabrication outside of reality. When you start coming up with relativistic equations on your own, let me know. Until then, I don't think you'll be changing the scientific world.

Intelligence and education are different things. There are lots of educated intelligent people, lots of educated dumb people, and intelligent uneducated people. Many of us here qualify as intelligent uneducated people, at least as it relates to science.