Geocentrism, if I understand you correctly, does represent a valid model of the solar system, though. That it isn't a solarcentric model of the solar system doesn't make it untrue.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do We Put Too Much Faith In Current Science?
- Thread starter Storm
- Start date
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
The whole thread is do we put to much faith in science. No, we don't. Scientists make mistakes all the time and fix them, and if those were mistakes, they are fixed. It all leads to better understanding. The atom is an example here. We had no idea before electron microscopes and then we got a sneak peak. In making my judgement i compare the faith we have in science to the faith we have in God (particularly the Christian God) and how nothing has changed in 2000 years, yet we have changed and evolved so much.
Yes we have to have faith that what we're doing is right, but the only people that tell us science is wrong usually don't know what the hell they're on about, or are scientists who are getting paid to say the same thing.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Here are the conversions; you are correct btw:
Period versus frequency
As a matter of convenience, longer and slower waves, such as ocean surface waves, tend to be described by wave period rather than frequency. Short and fast waves, like audio and radio, are usually described by their frequency instead of period. These commonly used conversions are listed below:
Frequency 1 mHz (10-3) 1 Hz (100) 1 kHz (103) 1 MHz (106) 1 GHz (109) 1 THz (1012)
Period (time) 1 ks (103) 1 s (100) 1 ms (10-3) 1 µs (10-6) 1 ns (10-9) 1 ps (10-12)
Women_Of_Reason
Mystery Lover
Mechanical waves like sound waves or waves on the ocean is not the same than electromagnetic waves. I`m sorry... no information is transmitted faster than the speed of light in your computer.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Do the conversion, Its in the reply above mine.
From Einstein we have the relationship C = f/L, you do the math. Im assuming you know the wavelength of violet light is roughly 400nm.
Im pretty sure that breaks the speed of light quite easily. If you thinks its wrong take it up with Einstein.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
So you're disagreeing with Professor's of Electronic engineering? What makes you so sure about that?
Women_Of_Reason
Mystery Lover
So light itself goes faster then it`s speed... interesting.
Einstein... come on. You are telling me that Einstein said that something could go faster then light? Google "special relativity" please.
Women_Of_Reason
Mystery Lover
Your argument by authority will not work with me.
Now please google wave-particle duality, quantum mechanics, mechanical waves and electromagnetic waves.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
No but you can work out the speed of violet light in a vaccum given frequency and wavelength. Thats what i was getting at.
So are you saying that the speed of light is unbreakable?
Women_Of_Reason
Mystery Lover
According to Einstein`s special relativity... yes. Which as not yet been disproven... If your teacher can prove this wrong, then tell him to go get his well deserved Nobel prize
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Tell me, what qualifies you to state that a computer processor cannot exceed the speed of light?
Don't humour me i have done physics. I am familiar with waves, quantam mechanics and models and EM waves. I just want you to show me why a processor cannot exceed the speed of light? Its all well and goos showing me these pages ive seen before but give me a reason.
Women_Of_Reason
Mystery Lover
Google "photon" to while you are at it.
Women_Of_Reason
Mystery Lover
Let me guess... You don`t think that wikipedia is a good source. Read this article anyways. Faster-than-light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Wikipedia is fine.
I have not been under the impression thats the speed of light was a barrier. Thats why i think that particles (and processors) can exceed this speed.
Time will tell won't it, until then its a guessing game and who can throw the most Laws of physics at whom.
Correct. Currently. I thought einsteins so called spooky action at a distance would be sure to transfer information faster than light when fully explored... of course it was 1993 then and it turns out I was wrong...
Science is like that... You put your best foot forward til your toes get lopped off or another foot evolves to be e'en better...
Women_Of_Reason
Mystery Lover
The thing is that you are trashing one if not the most important physical constant of all time,c i.e. the constant speed of light in a vacuum. Independently of the movement of the light source. Light always goes at the same speed.The fundamental aspect of relativity.
Last edited:
Women_Of_Reason
Mystery Lover
This was such an important feature of the world that it made Einstein change Newton`s theory of gravity. Thus general relativity was born, the actual theory of gravity.
A fantastic moment of science and a great example of how a tried and true and world wide accepted scientific concept can just be abandoned... I mean yeah it didnt go quietly hehe... but it went.
Women_Of_Reason
Mystery Lover
That is what science is all about... Fascinating isin`t it?
Renji
Well-Known Member
Are you refering to Einstein's theory of relativity (E=mc2)?