Disproving god with the laws of logic

[freethinker44]

You don't need a source for that. Think about it. Is there anything that prevents you from spinning a laser very fast? Ok, suppose you move a screen further and further away. As you move it further and further away, the spot moves faster and faster without limit. Seems that should be intuitive, but I could do a geometry proof. There's a very real world astronomy example, where some explosion hitting something like a screen, had that impact point move faster than the speed of light.

That is exactly what I wanted you to say. General relativity and Quantum mechanics are counterintuitive to traditional newtonian physics. You aren't really making any sense but I think I know what you are trying to say, do you mean that if you are on a train traveling at the speed of light and move forward within the train you will be moving fast than the speed of light? To an outside observer you would be traveling faster than light. But inside the train, if you were to use some kind of speed checking device, and focused it on an independent object to behind the train, you measure yor speed at the speed of light whether you were standing still in the train or walking forward. Both you and the observer would see different speeds because the effects of time dilation but in reality the speed of light was never exceeded.

I used to think you could travel faster than the speed of light in a black hole, because if light could not escape a black holes gravity then the black hole must be exerting a greater force than the speed of light. I thought that if you were to drop a rock into a black hole, because its escape velocity was greater than the speed of light, then the terminal velocity of the rock would be greater than the speed of light. The more I learn about relativity the more I see how wrong that is.

 

[Kurt31416]

[edit] EPR Paradox

We can also quote the spectacular case of the thought experiment of Einstein, Podolski and Rosen (EPR paradox) which could be realized in experiments for the first time by Alain Aspect in 1981 and 1982 in the Aspect experiment. In this case, the measurement of the state on one of the quantum systems of an entangled pair forces the other system to be measured in the complementary state. Thus functions quantum teleportation.
An experiment performed in 1997 by Nicolas Gisin at the University of Geneva has demonstrated nonlocal quantum correlations between particles separated by over 10 kilometers.[33] But as noted earlier, the nonlocal correlations seen in entanglement cannot actually be used to transmit classical information faster than light, so that relativistic causality is preserved; see no-communication theorem for further information. A 2008 quantum physics experiment also performed by Nicolas Gisin and his colleagues in Geneva, Switzerland has determined that the "speed" of the quantum non-local connection (what Einstein called spooky action at a distance) has a minimum lower bound of 10,000 times the speed of light. [34]

Faster-than-light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Archer]

And did you read the 'relativity of light' in the same website you offered?
It speaks of light having two separate meanings, Day One as compared to Day Four.

And are you aware that recent experiments of extreme cold have shown the speed of light reduced to that of a bicycle? Energy equals mass times the velocity of light squared?

And are you actually disproving God with any of this?

Yes I am, and we are talking about faster than light not light itself.

Yes I know all about the experiment where the photons were almost stopped, but that I believe was due to wavelength interference. If we go that route it even lends more credence to the earth not being as old as some say it is (4.x billion years old) and opens up the door to time compression (~6500=4.x billion).

 

[Kurt31416]

That is exactly what I wanted you to say.

That I could prove it with math? You like math?

General relativity and Quantum mechanics are counterintuitive to traditional newtonian physics.

Uh huh, but it's simple old elementary algebra Special Relativity we're talking about here.

You aren't really making any sense but I think I know what you are trying to say, do you mean that if you are on a train traveling at the speed of light and move forward within the train you will be moving fast than the speed of light?

No, it's impossible for a train to tavel at the speed of light. If it was going .99.999% of the speed of light relative to the earth, to an observer on earth, the best you can do is 99.999999999...% of the speed of light. However, you on the train consider yourself standing still and the earth whizzing by, and would have no problem running as fast as you like relative to the train.

To an outside observer you would be traveling faster than light. But inside the train, if you were to use some kind of speed checking device, and focused it on an independent object to behind the train, you measure yor speed at the speed of light whether you were standing still in the train or walking forward. Both you and the observer would see different speeds because the effects of time dilation but in reality the speed of light was never exceeded.

Nah, I was talking about the EPR paradox sending a random number faster than the speed of light, a light shining on a screen moving faster than the speed of light, the phase angle in a waveguide always faster than the speed of light, a wave breaking at shore, the breaking part faster than the speed of light and of course, the ability to cut paper faster than the speed of light.

I used to think you could travel faster than the speed of light in a black hole, because if light could not escape a black holes gravity then the black hole must be exerting a greater force than the speed of light. I thought that if you were to drop a rock into a black hole, because its escape velocity was greater than the speed of light, then the terminal velocity of the rock would be greater than the speed of light. The more I learn about relativity the more I see how wrong that is.

Turns out, from the viewpoint of someone on the outside of the Black Hole, things slow down as the fall in, and never ever quite fall in all the way. They join everything else that's ever fallen in a crazy quilt on the surface, getting dimmer and dimmer and redder and redder. The brave astronaut from the viewpoint of an outside observer would live forever, but from her viewpoint, it would be a quick death.

 

[Thief]

And you actually believe that a lengthy discussion of numbers will cause the participants of this forum to give up their God(s)?

 

[freethinker44]

Here's one for the phase velocity, apparantly it can go faster than twice the speed of light. I could swear it couldn't...oh well...

Since (as we've seen) the phase velocity is w/k, this implies that the (dominant) phase velocity in a waveguide with cutoff frequency w0 is

Hence, not only is the phase velocity generally greater than c, it approaches infinity as w approaches the cutoff frequency w0. However, the speed at which information and energy actually propagates down a waveguide is the group velocity, which (as we've seen) is given by dw/dk.

Phase, Group, and Signal Velocity

I went ahead and quoted the rest of the paragraph that you quoted from and I highlighted the appropriate portions for you.

Hence, not only is the phase velocity generally greater than c, it approaches infinity as w approaches the cutoff frequency w0. However, the speed at which information and energy actually propagates down a waveguide is the group velocity, which (as we've seen) is given by dw/dk. Taking the derivative of the preceding expression for k with respect to w gives

so the group velocity in a waveguide with cutoff frequency w0 is

which of course is always less than or equal to c.
Unfortunately we frequently read in the newspapers about how someone has succeeded in transmitting a wave with a group velocity exceeding c, and we are asked to regard this as an astounding discovery, overturning the principles of relativity, etc. The problem with these stories is that the group velocity corresponds to the actual signal velocity only under conditions of normal dispersion, or, more generally, under conditions when the group velocity is less than the phase velocity. In other circumstances, the group velocity does not necessarily represent the actual propagation speed of any information or energy. For example, in a regime of anomalous dispersion, which means the refractive index decreases with increasing wave number, the preceding formula shows that what we called the group velocity exceeds what we called the phase velocity. In such circumstances the group velocity no longer represents the speed at which information or energy propagates.



Now either way, whether I am right or wrong. I'm still right because the original qoute archer put up said the earth could be billions of years old and still only 6500 because of time distortion, and this is completely ridiculous.

 

[Kurt31416]

I went ahead and quoted the rest of the paragraph that you quoted from and I highlighted the appropriate portions for you.

Hence, not only is the phase velocity generally greater than c, it approaches infinity as w approaches the cutoff frequency w0. However, the speed at which information and energy actually propagates down a waveguide is the group velocity, which (as we've seen) is given by dw/dk. Taking the derivative of the preceding expression for k with respect to w gives

so the group velocity in a waveguide with cutoff frequency w0 is

which of course is always less than or equal to c.
Unfortunately we frequently read in the newspapers about how someone has succeeded in transmitting a wave with a group velocity exceeding c, and we are asked to regard this as an astounding discovery, overturning the principles of relativity, etc. The problem with these stories is that the group velocity corresponds to the actual signal velocity only under conditions of normal dispersion, or, more generally, under conditions when the group velocity is less than the phase velocity. In other circumstances, the group velocity does not necessarily represent the actual propagation speed of any information or energy. For example, in a regime of anomalous dispersion, which means the refractive index decreases with increasing wave number, the preceding formula shows that what we called the group velocity exceeds what we called the phase velocity. In such circumstances the group velocity no longer represents the speed at which information or energy propagates.

Group velocity and phase velocity aren't the same thing. I never claimed group velocity travels faster than the speed of light. I claimed a bunch of things travel faster than the speed of light, but not that. And I said repeatedly that you can't use it to send information or energy.

Now either way, whether I am right or wrong.

No harm in either of use being wrong, the only harm would be in clinging to it.

I'm still right because the original qoute archer put up said the earth could be billions of years old and still only 6500 because of time distortion, and this is completely ridiculous.

Special Relativity says that to an observer traveling fast enough, the earth is only 6500 years old. You could plug the numbers into the elementary algebra equation and calculate how fast that needs to be. Moving clocks run slow (to others.)

 

[freethinker44]

And did you read the 'relativity of light' in the same website you offered?
It speaks of light having two separate meanings, Day One as compared to Day Four.

And are you aware that recent experiments of extreme cold have shown the speed of light reduced to that of a bicycle? Energy equals mass times the velocity of light squared?

And are you actually disproving God with any of this?

Extreme cold like the extreme cold of space where light doesn't slow down at all? Or is there another absolute zero that I haven't heard of.

And no all of science can be proven wrong in the next second and it wouldn't affect my beliefs at all, my beliefs are philosphical not scientific. The knowledge gained from science strengthens them but is definitely not the foundations.

 

[freethinker44]

Special Relativity says that to an observer traveling fast enough, the earth is only 6500 years old. You could plug the numbers into the elementary algebra equation and calculate how fast that needs to be. Moving clocks run slow (to others.)

Agreed, but we are not traveling fast enough.

 

[Kurt31416]

And you actually believe that a lengthy discussion of numbers will cause the participants of this forum to give up their God(s)?

Well, it might shake their faith in their all powerful, can do no evil, science-god.

 

[Kurt31416]

Agreed, but we are not traveling fast enough.

Good point, from our viewpoint, the earth's been here from a good 4 billion years.

Granted, if the words come from God, (rather unlikely), he could be going real fast or accelerating or something. But from our viewpoint a solid 4 billion plus.

 

[Archer]

As it is represented by science infinity is the number 8 @ 90*. As seen by man lay the 8 down and stretch it forever and it is a line with no beginning or end. As seen by God turn the line 90* on the X axis to the Z and it is a dot that can bee seen all at one time.

 

[freethinker44]

As it is represented by science infinity is the number 8 @ 90*. As seen by man lay the 8 down and stretch it forever and it is a line with no beginning or end. As seen by God turn the line 90* on the X axis to the Z and it is a dot that can bee seen all at one time.

As seen by science, infinity means gibberish. If a scientist writes an equation for something and gets infinity for an answer, then he erases the equation and starts over because it has no practical value. This is the problem when merging quantum mechanics with relativity, they work perfectly by themselves but fall apart when applied together. By fall apart I mean they get answers like infinity and greater than 100%, people are generally awed by these two concepts but in science they are meaningless and only signify failure.

 

[Archer]

As seen by science, infinity means gibberish. If a scientist writes an equation for something and gets infinity for an answer, then he erases the equation and starts over because it has no practical value. This is the problem when merging quantum mechanics with relativity, they work perfectly by themselves but fall apart when applied together. By fall apart I mean they get answers like infinity and greater than 100%, people are generally awed by these two concepts but in science they are meaningless and only signify failure.

You missed my point! Only that it is represented with the 8 not as the solution.

 

[Thief]

Post#229 credits to me a quote that isn't mine.

Wouldn't want you guys thinking I wrote it.

But as you continue onward with your numbers....
I'm going to give God credit for being the Creator of all these details.

 

[Archer]

:yes: much is due to God.

 

[freethinker44]

Post#229 credits to me a quote that isn't mine.

lol, I didn't even notice. Must be a glitch in the system.

 

[Kurt31416]

The Calculus, the math of physics, is infinity applied to algebra. You divide infinity from infinity, you subtract infinity from infinity, you add up infinite numbers of infinitely small things, etc. and sometimes you get an answer of 42.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

:yes: much is due to God.

Yes including all the death and suffering on this planet. All the children dying of hunger. All the people being blown apart by bombs.

All hail Satan.............. I mean God. :yes:

-Q

 

[Kurt31416]

Yes including all the death and suffering on this planet. All the children dying of hunger. All the people being blown apart by bombs.

All hail Satan.............. I mean God. :yes:

-Q

Ever look into the second century Gnostics that almost defeated Christianity? That was their viewpoint. For all the suffering in the world, God had to be the bad guy and this was obviously hell.

(That made the snake in the Garden of Eden the good guy and so on. The kindly Father of Jesus was/is another god entirely, but he was out to lunch or something and we were/are on our own.)