Physics is Wrong

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
All of the continents were once connected in one huge continent know as Pangaea.[/quote]

Nothing but labels. tell be where the attom in my fingernail was back then[/quote]

DoubleDuce, I get the impression you’re trying to be edgy. You’re coming off as a retard.
Labels or not, the english language has a set of guidelines and definitions that all adhere by.
If you want to make up your own language, then do so, but don’t expect anyone to understand what the fuck you are saying.
And physics is pretty absolute. As an engineer, you should know this. Considering it’s the heart and soul of your work.
We can’t know where every atom is. We don’t need to know.
[/quote]

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Names have nothing to do with the nature of things. I’m sorry you can’t understand that. Its because I’m an engineer I know science isn’t absolute at all.

And we can’t know where any atom is or was. But all that is is atoms.[/quote]

I’m an engineer too, dumbass.
Just cause you’re an engineer doesn’t mean you have some amazing power of insight.

You’re trying too hard. Way too hard.
[/quote]

“As an engineer, you should know this”–you

Funny, you are the one that insinuated engineers have a special insight. I respond to your insinuation and you tell me I’m dumb engineers don’t have insight.

You weren’t contradicting me, you were contradicting yourself. So, who’s the dumbass?

But, nice constructive post there. Real good “insight” into the discussion.

182

I think it’s funny so many people take offense to me saying physics is wrong. I thought science prided itself on it’s ability to admit error and evolve.

If this experiment is correct, which there is no reason to believe it false, the equations set forth by general relativity are proven incorrect. Could someone explain to me how that doesn’t mean physics is wrong?

183

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I think it’s funny so many people take offense to me saying physics is wrong. I thought science prided itself on it’s ability to admit error and evolve.

If this experiment is correct, which there is no reason to believe it false, the equations set forth by general relativity are proven incorrect. Could someone explain to me how that doesn’t mean physics is wrong?[/quote]

I just hope that their findings are correct. There is nothing more exciting that a scientific paradigm shift.I’d love for that to happen again.

184

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

…You are assuming a creator couldn’t create a universe with a “memory” built in. And there is no logical reason for that assumption. In fact it goes against the very claim of a christian god.

[/quote]

For the detractors of this idea: Why couldn’t or didn’t a creator create the “appearance of (an) age(d)” universe?

It would certainly be consistent with the events described in Genesis 1 - 2. In those chapters it is explained that He created all biology in a fully developed, mature, i.e., “aged” state. Why would He not do the same with the non-biological matter in His universe?

Give me the “scientific” reasons if you will. In the absence of those, philosophical/religious ones will be accepted.
[/quote]

Please provide the scripture to support the above premise. Thanks.[/quote]

I did. You even quoted me where I mentioned it.[/quote]

I’ll look. I was really referring specifically to your claim that all biology was created in a full developed “aged” state. Is that an interpretation or a plain reading of the scripture? I don’t have my KJV bedside right now.
[/quote]

OK, here we go:

Genesis 1:11[i]

Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning - the third day. [/i]

It doesn’t say God created seeds that later sprouted into plants; it says “seed-bearing plants and trees…with fruit with seeds in it…and it was so.” And then the third day ended.

A seed/fruit bearing plant IS fully developed, mature, “aged”. That is both a reasonable “interpretation” AND “a plain reading of the scripture”.

Sooooo that covers the plant kingdom. Now let’s move on to animalia.

[i]20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning - the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. [/i]

Animals that move along the ground, teem, swim and fly are NOT embryonic. They are mature. They had the “appearance of age” the instant (surely within the 24 hour period of the fifth day) they were made.

Now man:[i]

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.[/i]

Chapters 2 and 3 elaborate and let us know that Adam and Eve were developed human beings not embryos or sperm and eggs in the process of being united in Gaia’s terrestrial womb.

So now we have the two kingdoms of biological life covered (I know we didn’t cover viruses and the like. Sorry) so let’s move on to energy.

[i]6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning - the second day.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day…

…14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights - the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning - the fourth day. [/i]

So a reasonable interpretation and a plain reading indicate energy/matter was created on Day One.

On Day Two the matter was preliminarily organized - the earth was formed by forming water and then separating it from land.

On Day Three vegetation was created. Fully developed

On Day Four celestial objects were formed from the matter and energy. It makes sense that the photon beams were created “in place” and thus with the “appearance of age”. It just does. Call it an interpretation if you like but it is reasonable to infer such especially in light of the context of the rest of what I have posted.

On Day Five animals were created. Fully developed.

On Day Six man was created. Fully developed.

So here is my premise. If all this mentioned “stuff” was created in a mature state why is it so far-fetched to extend the appearance of age theory to the physical aspects of the universe that aren’t mentioned?[/quote]

Thanks.

So isn’t it axiomatic that given your seemingly literal reading of Genesis, that you deny evolution? If you do not, how do you personally reconcile the two?

Did you notice “let us make mankind in OUR image”. Was that a typo? If it wasn’t a typo, can you explain “our”?

FTR I do not disagree with the logic of your premise, any more than I disagree with the logic of the CA. Neither are necessarily convincing or constitute truth, but as constructed, I don’t have a problem with it.

I do think the known universe is incredibly complex and vast such that I find it hard to believe it was just put there, aged as you say, just for humanity and earth. That’s an extremely myopic view by any reasonable measure.

185

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Fascinating topic and thread. Very interesting indeed. Maybe this’ll wind up being the flat earth joke of the 21st century. Until of course we UNdiscover the next absolutely fundamental fact of ultimate reality that we just knew was true. We sher iz jist the most comical critters ain’t we?[/quote]

I’d suggest you actually view the two video links and consider the view of a respected physicist. He explains in pretty simple detail why the above is simply not the case.

In before you reply with your usually in-artful and awkward “fallen mankind” and his faulty logic and so forth and so on.

186

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I think it’s funny so many people take offense to me saying physics is wrong. I thought science prided itself on it’s ability to admit error and evolve.

If this experiment is correct, which there is no reason to believe it false, the equations set forth by general relativity are proven incorrect. Could someone explain to me how that doesn’t mean physics is wrong?[/quote]

There is plenty reason to be cautious about this “discovery”. Don’t you think it would be prudent to at least wait until the physics community renders a verdict?

However, even if it were true, it does not falsify GR in its entirety, it just means we have may found a special condition where the “rules” do not apply. “Special condition” is by rule pretty limited.

187

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I think it’s funny so many people take offense to me saying physics is wrong. I thought science prided itself on it’s ability to admit error and evolve.

If this experiment is correct, which there is no reason to believe it false, the equations set forth by general relativity are proven incorrect. Could someone explain to me how that doesn’t mean physics is wrong?[/quote]

There is plenty reason to be cautious about this “discovery”. Don’t you think it would be prudent to at least wait until the physics community renders a verdict?

However, even if it were true, it does not falsify GR in its entirety, it just means we have may found a special condition where the “rules” do not apply. “Special condition” is by rule pretty limited. [/quote]

From, what I’ve read, they have been very cautious. They’ve spent years verifying and checking and re-checking.

But there would at least have to be new rules for the condition.

I’m excited about it I hope it holds up. It could literally mean backwards time travel and/or length inversion or some other crazy shit.

On the bad side, I might have to throw out some of my books. Hah!

189

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I think it’s funny so many people take offense to me saying physics is wrong. I thought science prided itself on it’s ability to admit error and evolve.

If this experiment is correct, which there is no reason to believe it false, the equations set forth by general relativity are proven incorrect. Could someone explain to me how that doesn’t mean physics is wrong?[/quote]

no it would prove the constants are incorrect. To prove the equations wrong they would also have to show that it travels by some alternate acceleration/mass ratio. Einstein worked with what he was able to measure, but in the end he still essentially proved Newton correct. As this would probably be added to the laws of relativity rather than the complete annihilation everyone is predicting.

190

So I was wondering how significant a difference 60 nanoseconds was in regard to how much faster these particle were actually going than they should have been.

Speed of light @ 730 km gives you an elapsed time for light of about 2433333 nanoseconds. 60 nano seconds faster would mean, a .00247% increase above the speed of light. Not much.

191

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I think it’s funny so many people take offense to me saying physics is wrong. I thought science prided itself on it’s ability to admit error and evolve.

If this experiment is correct, which there is no reason to believe it false, the equations set forth by general relativity are proven incorrect. Could someone explain to me how that doesn’t mean physics is wrong?[/quote]

no it would prove the constants are incorrect. To prove the equations wrong they would also have to show that it travels by some alternate acceleration/mass ratio. Einstein worked with what he was able to measure, but in the end he still essentially proved Newton correct. As this would probably be added to the laws of relativity rather than the complete annihilation everyone is predicting.
[/quote]

If constants are wrong, equations are wrong. But there is no reason to think it is or isn’t just constants.

192

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So I was wondering how significant a difference 60 nanoseconds was in regard to how much faster these particle were actually going than they should have been.

Speed of light @ 730 km gives you an elapsed time for light of about 2433333 nanoseconds. 60 nano seconds faster would mean, a .00247% increase above the speed of light. Not much.

[/quote]

So let’s see, 60ns with a 10ns error margin, that’s a net 50ns faster on a 454 mile track.

The speed of light is 186,282 miles/s.

The claimed increase is 0.0093291 miles/s over that distance.
Or
49 feet/sec over the speed of light.
Or
33 MPH faster than the speed of light which is 670,615,200 MPH.

Amazing that supercomputers and billion dollar particle accelerators and just now starting to make us question 50-100 year old scientific theories that were thought up in peoples heads and then confirmed with a pencil and paper.

However, It doesn’t help answer the age-old question:

If you’re driving at the speed of light, and you turn your headlights on, do they work? :wink:

193

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

No. It disagrees that Genesis 1 and 2 are a historical account. I personally think that looking at it as a historical account misses the more important points made by Genesis 1 and 2. And it’s doesn’t matter if GR is not completely correct or not, that’s not going to change the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old anyway.

Of course you do have biblical literalists who say they believe every word of the Bible literally. But they do not and I could prove it to them if I could have an honest discussion with one. So far it’s a no go. Now, I do think there is on person here I could have the discussion here with, but never got around to having it.

Anyhow, I will say this and mean it. If you think that a scientific fact proven true would invalidate your faith in God, you never really had any to begin with.[/quote]

I’m confused (not really :slight_smile: ).
[/quote]
Yes you are, frequently.

No you don’t, so yes you are.

Why would it need to be? Doesn’t really specify when it happened, did it?

The bible is inerrant, divinely inspired and spiritual. If you are using it for a purpose it’s not intended for then it will not provide the info you need. That be like accusing a cook book as being errant because it doesn’t tell you how to replace the CV joint on a 1979 Chrysler Imperial. That’s not what the book is for. It’s a historical book, but it’t not a history book.
The bible contains many books and many stories for many different purposes some are literal, some are prophetic, some are allegorical, some are historical, some are parables.

BC does not do that unless he’s talking about what the church says. But it’s not unusual for to to falsely accuse people of things they do not do.

Facetious is not what I think your being. It’s not hard to reconcile the logic, it really isn’t. If you believe in God the bible is important, if you don’t it’s not.
As for the rest, the Bible can speak for itself. If you don’t read it, misuse it or don’t understand it, that’s not the Bible’s fault.[/quote]

Ah, the old PWI shuffle. LOL. Pick and reply.

Problem with your analogy is that I know of no cookbook that makes any reference to a CV joint. Fail sir. Nice try.
[/quote]

And the bible never makes a claim that is a history book or an archaeological reference. Like I said, misusing it or misunderstanding it, is not the Bible’s fault.

194

[quote]asusvenus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I think it’s funny so many people take offense to me saying physics is wrong. I thought science prided itself on it’s ability to admit error and evolve.

If this experiment is correct, which there is no reason to believe it false, the equations set forth by general relativity are proven incorrect. Could someone explain to me how that doesn’t mean physics is wrong?[/quote]

I just hope that their findings are correct. There is nothing more exciting that a scientific paradigm shift.I’d love for that to happen again.[/quote]

Oh me too, but I don’t think it will prove relativity totally incorrect, I think it will limit it’s scope just like relativity did to Newtonian physics. It didn’t invalidate it, it just limited it’s application. So I think will happen to Relativity. Relativity will be applicable to the universe to a certain point, but beyond that another measure is needed. I do think speed of light can still be an absolute in that it is ever constant and never changes, but it will no longer be an absolute threshold. Like I said I am wondering what this will do to theories of time. Is the partial moving back in time as it goes beyond the speed of light or not? What if it’s not? It may also give us insight to what is going on beyond the event horizon in a black hole.

195

[quote]colt44 wrote:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say next to a passage “Read, but don’t take this literally” or “don’t worry about this it didn’t happen, but consider it a good lesson, as it has a good meaning behind it” or “this really did happen” or any other similar scenario.

It either has to be read as 100 percent true, or none of it can be read as true…

Stop the cherry-picking[/quote]

Have you read it?
How much do you really know about it?

196

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say next to a passage “Read, but don’t take this literally” or “don’t worry about this it didn’t happen, but consider it a good lesson, as it has a good meaning behind it” or “this really did happen” or any other similar scenario.

It either has to be read as 100 percent true, or none of it can be read as true…

Stop the cherry-picking[/quote]

Have you read it?[/quote]

If your child were to ask you where he came from, and you told him he was born from the love between you and your spouse, did you lie to your child. Could you scientifically verify that he was caused by sex, thereby disproving being born of love?

That’s the kind of nonsense you end up arguing with the “100% true and has to be all literal or its all wrong” crowd.

197

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say next to a passage “Read, but don’t take this literally” or “don’t worry about this it didn’t happen, but consider it a good lesson, as it has a good meaning behind it” or “this really did happen” or any other similar scenario.

It either has to be read as 100 percent true, or none of it can be read as true…

Stop the cherry-picking[/quote]

Have you read it?[/quote]

If your child were to ask you where he came from, and you told him he was born from the love between you and your spouse, did you lie to your child. Could you scientifically verify that he was caused by sex, thereby disproving being born of love?

That’s the kind of nonsense you end up arguing with the “100% true and has to be all literal or its all wrong” crowd.[/quote]

I really just stems from people wanting just to prove that their point of view is superior and that you should think like them or your a dumb ass. In other words it’s all chocked up to ego.

Ironically a lot of these same people are major science advocates and who use the conclusions of scientific theories to prove the bible is completely false because it did not consider quantum mechanics in the creation story. Where as this article you posted, if true are going to flush many of these theories right down the toilet because they require speed of light being an absolute threshold to be be true.
“Oooooo look, the bible didn’t consider this scientific theory, which is now proven false, so the spirituality to which the Bible speaks to is wrong.”
The bible is also not a science book, but don’t let that stop people from saying it’s science is wrong.

The funny thing about science, is that through science we have discovered that science has been mostly wrong in it’s history. It just takes a discovery like this CERN discovery to prove it wrong. It also shows us how truly very little we actually know about the universe.

198

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say next to a passage “Read, but don’t take this literally” or “don’t worry about this it didn’t happen, but consider it a good lesson, as it has a good meaning behind it” or “this really did happen” or any other similar scenario.

It either has to be read as 100 percent true, or none of it can be read as true…

Stop the cherry-picking[/quote]

Have you read it?[/quote]

If your child were to ask you where he came from, and you told him he was born from the love between you and your spouse, did you lie to your child. Could you scientifically verify that he was caused by sex, thereby disproving being born of love?

That’s the kind of nonsense you end up arguing with the “100% true and has to be all literal or its all wrong” crowd.[/quote]

It’s more that “It doesn’t speak to what I think it should so it’s all wrong” crowd. Like I said, how the hell the the Bible get dragged into this? I can’t think how it’s relevant to the topic at a hand, at all.

199

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

No. It disagrees that Genesis 1 and 2 are a historical account. I personally think that looking at it as a historical account misses the more important points made by Genesis 1 and 2. And it’s doesn’t matter if GR is not completely correct or not, that’s not going to change the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old anyway.

Of course you do have biblical literalists who say they believe every word of the Bible literally. But they do not and I could prove it to them if I could have an honest discussion with one. So far it’s a no go. Now, I do think there is on person here I could have the discussion here with, but never got around to having it.

Anyhow, I will say this and mean it. If you think that a scientific fact proven true would invalidate your faith in God, you never really had any to begin with.[/quote]

I’m confused (not really :slight_smile: ).
[/quote]
Yes you are, frequently.

No you don’t, so yes you are.

Why would it need to be? Doesn’t really specify when it happened, did it?

The bible is inerrant, divinely inspired and spiritual. If you are using it for a purpose it’s not intended for then it will not provide the info you need. That be like accusing a cook book as being errant because it doesn’t tell you how to replace the CV joint on a 1979 Chrysler Imperial. That’s not what the book is for. It’s a historical book, but it’t not a history book.
The bible contains many books and many stories for many different purposes some are literal, some are prophetic, some are allegorical, some are historical, some are parables.

BC does not do that unless he’s talking about what the church says. But it’s not unusual for to to falsely accuse people of things they do not do.

Facetious is not what I think your being. It’s not hard to reconcile the logic, it really isn’t. If you believe in God the bible is important, if you don’t it’s not.
As for the rest, the Bible can speak for itself. If you don’t read it, misuse it or don’t understand it, that’s not the Bible’s fault.[/quote]

Ah, the old PWI shuffle. LOL. Pick and reply.

Problem with your analogy is that I know of no cookbook that makes any reference to a CV joint. Fail sir. Nice try.
[/quote]

And the bible never makes a claim that is a history book or an archaeological reference. Like I said, misusing it or misunderstanding it, is not the Bible’s fault.
[/quote]

Exactly, and the reason why Christians should stop using it as one. We cannot say on historical grounds that Jesus was born to a virgin, walked on water, etc.

It’s Theology, not history.

200

[quote]Hellfrost wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So I was wondering how significant a difference 60 nanoseconds was in regard to how much faster these particle were actually going than they should have been.

Speed of light @ 730 km gives you an elapsed time for light of about 2433333 nanoseconds. 60 nano seconds faster would mean, a .00247% increase above the speed of light. Not much.

[/quote]

So let’s see, 60ns with a 10ns error margin, that’s a net 50ns faster on a 454 mile track.

The speed of light is 186,282 miles/s.

The claimed increase is 0.0093291 miles/s over that distance.
Or
49 feet/sec over the speed of light.
Or
33 MPH faster than the speed of light which is 670,615,200 MPH.

Amazing that supercomputers and billion dollar particle accelerators and just now starting to make us question 50-100 year old scientific theories that were thought up in peoples heads and then confirmed with a pencil and paper.

However, It doesn’t help answer the age-old question:

If you’re driving at the speed of light, and you turn your headlights on, do they work? ;)[/quote]

hmmm, I’d say they’d work, but you wouldn’t see their light. Of course, if you want to be literal, since you’d have to be energy to travel that fast, you couldn’t really have head lights.