Page 6 of 21 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 203
Thanks Tree26Thanks

Thread: Xians have it wrong...jesus wasn't crucified

  1. #51
    Veteran Member GordonGecko's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    29,973
    Thanks
    22628

    From
    VA
    Actually it was "suicide by cop"



    "...from a certain point of view."---Obi-wan Kenobi

  2. #52
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,557
    Thanks
    281

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Puzzling Evidence View Post
    Give it up. The speed of light is the only constant in the universe. Tired of telling you this. You're pushing agenda driven Christian Science and then acting very pompous about pushing ideas that arent mainstream.
    Please stop making a fool of yourself in the public domain. It pains me to see ignorance undeterred by facts and logic.

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909081.pdf

    That all inertial observers are equivalent is also seen from the fact that they are represented by
    geodesic worldlines which in the case of flat spacetime are straight worldlines. However, when an observer
    is accelerating his worldline is not geodesic (not a straight worldline in flat spacetime). Therefore, accelerated
    motion, unlike motion with constant velocity, is absolute - there is an absolute difference between
    a geodesic and a non-geodesic worldline. This means that the laws of physics in inertial and non-inertial
    reference frames are not the same. An immediate consequence is that the speed of light is not constant
    in non-inertial frames
    - a non-inertial observer can detect his accelerated motion by using light signals.

  3. #53
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,837
    Thanks
    2628

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Please stop making a fool of yourself in the public domain. It pains me to see ignorance undeterred by facts and logic.

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909081.pdf

    That all inertial observers are equivalent is also seen from the fact that they are represented by
    geodesic worldlines which in the case of flat spacetime are straight worldlines. However, when an observer
    is accelerating his worldline is not geodesic (not a straight worldline in flat spacetime). Therefore, accelerated
    motion, unlike motion with constant velocity, is absolute - there is an absolute difference between
    a geodesic and a non-geodesic worldline. This means that the laws of physics in inertial and non-inertial
    reference frames are not the same. An immediate consequence is that the speed of light is not constant
    in non-inertial frames
    - a non-inertial observer can detect his accelerated motion by using light signals.
    So do you know what the definition of c is or not? If you want to talk about something else, fine. But talking about something else and then pretending to be talking about c is ignorant.

    Actually, the best it is is ignorant. It smells more like dishonesty.

  4. #54
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,557
    Thanks
    281

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    So do you know what the definition of c is or not?
    Of course.

    c is the speed of light in vacuum. It is constant for observers ALL inertial reference frames (reference frames that are at rest or in constant linear motion relative to light).

    This speed varies for observers in non-inertial reference frames (reference frames that are accelerating relative to light).

    Does that help you, dear?

    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    If you want to talk about something else, fine. But talking about something else and then pretending to be talking about c is ignorant.

    Actually, the best it is is ignorant. It smells more like dishonesty.
    I'm sorry dear, but what I am saying are SCIENTIFIC FACTS and no amount of emotional hand-wringing on your part will change that. As I said, give it a rest and stop making a fool of yourself.

  5. #55
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,837
    Thanks
    2628

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Of course.

    c is the speed of light in vacuum. It is constant for observers ALL inertial reference frames (reference frames that are at rest or in constant linear motion relative to light).

    This speed varies for observers in non-inertial reference frames (reference frames that are accelerating relative to light).

    Does that help you, dear?

    I'm sorry dear, but what I am saying are SCIENTIFIC FACTS and no amount of emotional hand-wringing on your part will change that. As I said, give it a rest and stop making a fool of yourself.
    Okay, then, you DO get it. C is the speed of light in a vacuum and it's constant. That other thing you're talking about is something else entirely, and is NOT represented in the laws of physics by 'c'.

    And yet you keep saying that the speed of light varies, which can only be intentionally dishonest. c = c = c = c = c and nothing you can say will change that. Can the speed of light vary in your fantasyland? Sure. But that's not science, and even you must know that.

    You are a Bible-thumping hack trying to confuse people who don't know any better so you can manipulate them into supporting your insane religious fantasies in an effort to destabilize everything that protects people from those fantasies. Your efforts to bamboozle people into your cult should be ignored by people who value their sanity and their souls.

  6. #56
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,557
    Thanks
    281

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    Okay, then, you DO get it. C is the speed of light in a vacuum and it's constant.
    That is only true from an observer IN AN INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME. For an observer in a NON-INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME, the speed of light is NOT constant and is dependent on the observer's acceleration.

    Is it really hard for you to understand a simple concept like this?

    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    That other thing you're talking about is something else entirely, and is NOT represented in the laws of physics by 'c'.
    It is general relativity, dear. It is widely accepted theory in science, fyi.

    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    And yet you keep saying that the speed of light varies, which can only be intentionally dishonest. c = c = c = c = c and nothing you can say will change that. Can the speed of light vary in your fantasyland? Sure. But that's not science, and even you must know that.
    You mean vsl? It is a legitimate theory in physical cosmology based on observed phenomena.

    It's not cosmetology, by the way, in case you get confused.

    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    You are a Bible-thumping hack
    I can't say I remember thumping any bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    trying to confuse people who don't know any better
    Like yourself, perhaps? I've been very patient with you, dear.

    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    so you can manipulate them into supporting your insane religious fantasies in an effort to destabilize everything that protects people from those fantasies.
    And what fantasy might that be? That everything is a created reality?

    I don't need vsl for that. It is already the widely held belief that the universe started from a finite point. It did not exist prior to that point and it exists now.

    What do you call that if not creation, hmmm?

    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    Your efforts to bamboozle people into your cult should be ignored by people who value their sanity and their souls.
    You really need to dial down on the bigotry, dear.

  7. #57
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,837
    Thanks
    2628

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    You really need to dial down on the bigotry, dear.
    You need to dial down the crazy.

    As long as you're in this universe, the speed of light is constant, period end of story. The speed of light in the Laws of Physics is represented by c and it does not ever change. It only changes in quasi-phony-baloney-equations crafted by Creationists for Creationists, which is what you are, dating back many, many years.

    Now I could be wrong about this part, but I think I recall a discussion with you from way back ending with you letting us all know that you wish America was a theocracy based on a fundamentalist understanding of the Bible. I'm pretty sure, actually. I think there was something in there about people and dinosaurs living at the same time, too.

  8. #58
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,557
    Thanks
    281

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    You need to dial down the crazy.

    As long as you're in this universe, the speed of light is constant, period end of story. The speed of light in the Laws of Physics is represented by c and it does not ever change. It only changes in quasi-phony-baloney-equations crafted by Creationists for Creationists, which is what you are, dating back many, many years.
    Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same?

    You will sometimes find discussions that insist the only correct way to describe the Sagnac Effect is by reference to an inertial frame: they will say that the only concept with meaning is the locally measured speed of light, which is c, and that what the non-inertial observer sitting on the loop says about the motions of two light rays has no physical meaning. Whilst the Sagnac effect is easy to calculate using an inertial frame—because then we can use the simple equations of adding velocities in special relativity—it doesn't follow that any non-inertial description of it is invalid. Those who insist that non-inertial descriptions are invalid are like the man whose house is about to be picked up by a cyclone: they will shout "Don't worry folks! The wind isn't really circulating at 300 km/h. It's really Earth that's rotating in an inertial frame, and the resulting differential motions give rise to the illusion that the wind is about to shred this house." Yes, it's certainly valid to analyse the situation using Newton's laws in an inertial frame. But you might want to hang on to your house while doing so.

    Duh?

    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    Now I could be wrong about this part, but I think I recall a discussion with you from way back ending with you letting us all know that you wish America was a theocracy based on a fundamentalist understanding of the Bible. I'm pretty sure, actually. I think there was something in there about people and dinosaurs living at the same time, too.
    Your memory is as questionable as your knowledge in basic physics. At no point in my entire life did I entertain this young-earth nonsense.

    And yes, you need to cut down on your bigotry against christians. If I were a jew or a homosexual, you'd already be banned from this forum.

  9. #59
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,837
    Thanks
    2628

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same?

    You will sometimes find discussions that insist the only correct way to describe the Sagnac Effect is by reference to an inertial frame: they will say that the only concept with meaning is the locally measured speed of light, which is c, and that what the non-inertial observer sitting on the loop says about the motions of two light rays has no physical meaning. Whilst the Sagnac effect is easy to calculate using an inertial frame—because then we can use the simple equations of adding velocities in special relativity—it doesn't follow that any non-inertial description of it is invalid. Those who insist that non-inertial descriptions are invalid are like the man whose house is about to be picked up by a cyclone: they will shout "Don't worry folks! The wind isn't really circulating at 300 km/h. It's really Earth that's rotating in an inertial frame, and the resulting differential motions give rise to the illusion that the wind is about to shred this house." Yes, it's certainly valid to analyse the situation using Newton's laws in an inertial frame. But you might want to hang on to your house while doing so.

    Duh?



    Your memory is as questionable as your knowledge in basic physics. At no point in my entire life did I entertain this young-earth nonsense.

    And yes, you need to cut down on your bigotry against christians. If I were a jew or a homosexual, you'd already be banned from this forum.
    Okay, if you say so. But I could have sworn that was you.

  10. #60
    Junior Member zaangalewa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,305
    Thanks
    165

    From
    Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Please stop making a fool of yourself in the public domain. It pains me to see ignorance undeterred by facts and logic.

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909081.pdf

    That all inertial observers are equivalent is also seen from the fact that they are represented by
    geodesic worldlines which in the case of flat spacetime are straight worldlines. However, when an observer
    is accelerating his worldline is not geodesic (not a straight worldline in flat spacetime). Therefore, accelerated
    motion, unlike motion with constant velocity, is absolute - there is an absolute difference between
    a geodesic and a non-geodesic worldline. This means that the laws of physics in inertial and non-inertial
    reference frames are not the same. An immediate consequence is that the speed of light is not constant
    in non-inertial frames
    - a non-inertial observer can detect his accelerated motion by using light signals.
    If we measure the speed of light then we measure always the same value under all conditions, which we are able to change. The value is about 0.307 parsecs a year, 299792458 m/s, 671 million miles per hour, 1 plank length per plank time. A very slow, a very fast or an accelerating observer is measuring the same value. That's why space and time is relative to the absolute value of the speed of light, which could also be another value in another universe: We don't know why it is always this value here in our universe.

    What kind of condition has someone to change, so this one is able to measure another value?



    Leise zieht durch mein Gemüt

    Leise zieht durch mein Gemüt
    Liebliches Geläute.
    Klinge, kleines Frühlingslied.
    Kling hinaus ins Weite.

    Kling hinaus, bis an das Haus,
    Wo die Blumen sprießen.
    Wenn du eine Rose schaust,
    Sag, ich laß sie grüßen.


    Heinrich Heine
    Last edited by zaangalewa; 24th March 2017 at 07:30 PM.

Page 6 of 21 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Jesus wasn't an actual person
    By knight in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 236
    Last Post: 19th February 2016, 04:21 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 20th June 2015, 12:21 PM
  3. Rick Perry On What Went Wrong In 2012: 'I Wasn't Healthy'--
    By GordonGecko in forum Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 26th May 2015, 06:42 PM
  4. Bible Spice getting crucified
    By Think for myself in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 7th November 2008, 08:09 PM
  5. Maybe Obama Wasn't Wrong....
    By Migi e! in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 18th April 2008, 01:10 PM

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed