You are shifting between frames of reference again.
We can measure the speed of light here on Earth, so we already know that it does take time for a photon to move relative to Earth's frame of reference.
No, we wouldn't. We would be interacting with photons that left the object in the past...
"Taking on airs" is "acting like". In other words, cultural appropriation. To use another analogy, it would be like Jerry Seinfeld dressing, walking, and talking like a cowboy while walking around in Manhattan as if he comes from that culture.
The photon did not experience any time. We do experience time here on Earth. For us on Earth, it takes 30 million years for the light to travel that distance. Therefore, we can use light to measure time here on Earth in Earth's frame of reference.
Earth isn't moving at the speed of light, and it is the passage of time on Earth that you are looking for. Time ticks by at different rates for different frames of reference, so you can't calculate the passage of time for a photon and make statements about the passage of time on Earth. Also...
You are using the wrong frame of reference in that post. You switch between Earth's frame of reference and the photon's frame of reference. You need to be consistent with your frames of reference.
Also, the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference as long as you aren't travelling...
Using the equation above we could also predict how time passes differently between someone on Earth and someone in spaceship. Let's say that we had a super powerful telescope and could see a clock on the bridge of a ship travelling 0.5c relative to Earth and we watch the ship's clock for 1...
The equations are found in one of my earlier posts. Here it is again:
Δt = the observer time, or two-position time (s)
Δt0 = the proper time, or one-position time (s)
v = velocity (m/s)
c = speed of light (3.0 x 10^8 m/s)
All you need to do is plug 3.0 x 10^8 m/s into v and solve the...
There is evidence. The theory of relativity has been tested, and it makes accurate predictions. One of the best examples is the Hafele-Keating experiment which demonstrated time dilation for both gravitational fields and differences in velocity.
Hafele–Keating experiment - Wikipedia
They...
You don't need to know the origin of the universe in order to understand how it changed over time once it was here. You are simply trying to draw a false equivalency between science and your dogmatic religious beliefs.
It was predicted prior to observation. It was known that dark matter only interacts with luminous matter through gravitation so it was predicted that there should be 4 areas of mass when two galaxies run into each other, the 2 areas of luminous mass and 2 areas of dark matter further out. This...
Time dilation due to high velocities. It's a part of the theory of relativity.
That would be length contraction due to high velocities, also a part of the theory of relativity.
False. It is a lack of belief in gods. As your definition states, faith is a belief IN something. Atheists don't believe in gods. Atheism is defined solely by a lack of belief.
Right. So why can't God speak for himself?
You assume that Baha'u'llah is telling the truth no matter what is said. That's the funny part about religious dogma.
Time is built into the reference used for the distance. It is no difference than knowing 1 cubic centimeter of water has a mass of one gram even though one cubic centimeter of every other liquid will have a different mass. References are built into all the distances we use.