Sciences as a religion.

[bobhikes]

The speed of light is constant, remember. Light can bend, but can never be slowed.

The speed of light is only constant in a vacuum remember. It is slower when passing through water or glass and several other mediums. Supposedly it can never be faster.

This is all based on observations in the current solar system only. Science has always had this problem. It can only know what It knows so until It knows different it must be true. This is why science is a religion based on the current logical beliefs. At least is progressive 100 years from now science will be different.

 

[tumbleweed41]

This is all based on observations in the current solar system only. .

No, this is based of observations of our solar system, other solar systems in our galaxy, other galaxies, solar systems in those galaxies, etc...

 

[bobhikes]

No, this is based of observations of our solar system, other solar systems in our galaxy, other galaxies, solar systems in those galaxies, etc...

The best accurate measurement we could have on light right now would be if we can see the voyager(We can probably use the radio waves we receive). We would know the distance from and to the voyager. The voyager has not yet left the solar systems.

I don't think we contacted any aliens yet to confirm other galaxy distances.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Where is this vacuum you talk about?

By extreme gravity you mean the bending of light. But what about gravity slowing down light. The center of our galaxy uses gravity to pull all the solar systems together. The sun uses gravity to pull all the planets together if Gravity can bend light it is easily concluded that over great expansions gravity can slow light itself.

As space as we know it is not a vacuum. Its the closest thing to a vacuum we know but it is not a vacuum.

In one breath you question Universal Constants, in another you use those same Constants to support your position?

The fact is, yes, The universe is not a perfect vacuum. Those very factors you speak of are what Cosmologists and Astrophysicists use to make predictions and observations on the nature of light. Verifying that light follows the basic law of "an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by another force."
By removing those forces from the equation, it is simple to find the speed of light in a perfect vacuum.

 

[bobhikes]

In one breath you question Universal Constants, in another you use those same Constants to support your position?

The fact is, yes, The universe is not a perfect vacuum. Those very factors you speak of are what Cosmologists and Astrophysicists use to make predictions and observations on the nature of light. Verifying that light follows the basic law of "an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by another force."
By removing those forces from the equation, it is simple to find the speed of light in a perfect vacuum.

Not if gravity can effect it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

In one breath you question Universal Constants, in another you use those same Constants to support your position?

The fact is, yes, The universe is not a perfect vacuum. Those very factors you speak of are what Cosmologists and Astrophysicists use to make predictions and observations on the nature of light. Verifying that light follows the basic law of "an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by another force."
By removing those forces from the equation, it is simple to find the speed of light in a perfect vacuum.

Not if gravity can effect it.

What part of..
"an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by another force."
By removing those forces from the equation, it is simple to find the speed of light in a perfect vacuum.

Did you not understand?

 

[bobhikes]

What part of..
"an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by another force."
By removing those forces from the equation, it is simple to find the speed of light in a perfect vacuum.

Did you not understand?

Gravity is a force that can act on other forces. The Universe may have a gravitational force, the galaxy has a gravitational force, The solar system has a gravitational force, the earth and moon have a gravitational force.

We understand gravity so well that we can remove its force from the equation?

I would call that faith not reason.
Then I am saying science is a religion.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The best accurate measurement we could have on light right now would be if we can see the voyager(We can probably use the radio waves we receive). We would know the distance from and to the voyager. The voyager has not yet left the solar systems.

I don't think we contacted any aliens yet to confirm other galaxy distances.

Do you really think Voyager is the limit of our observations?
Have you ever heard of Hubble's observations and Law?
The doppler effect of light?
Physical constants that are repeatedly observed and confirmed?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Gravity is a force that can act on other forces. The Universe may have a gravitational force, the galaxy has a gravitational force, The solar system has a gravitational force, the earth and moon have a gravitational force.

We understand gravity so well that we can remove its force from the equation?

I would call that faith not reason.
Then I am saying science is a religion.

Gravity is one of the Universal Physical Constants.
6.67428(67)×10

−11
​

m3·kg−1·s−2

So, yes, it can be removed from the equation.

 

[bobhikes]

Do you really think Voyager is the limit of our observations?
Have you ever heard of Hubble's observations and Law?
The doppler effect of light?
Physical constants that are repeatedly observed and confirmed?

You can not confirm the distances observed by the hubble if you are wrong about the speed of light.

 

[bobhikes]

Gravity is one of the Universal Physical Constants.


6.67428(67)×10

−11​

m3·kg−1·s−2

So, yes, it can be removed from the equation.

Based on the known universe or the Actual universe. I am unclear, on how you could have a universal constant when you can't observe the whole universe.

Belief in the unknown is it not.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You can not confirm the distances observed by the hubble if you are wrong about the speed of light.

I am talking about Dr Hubble, not the telescope named after him.
Although the observations of the telescope do confirm the speed of light.
You see, it is falsifiable. All one would need to do is find a flaw between the observations and the predictions. This has not occurred.

 

[bobhikes]

I am talking about Dr Hubble, not the telescope named after him.
Although the observations of the telescope do confirm the speed of light.
You see, it is falsifiable. All one would need to do is find a flaw between the observations and the predictions. This has not occurred.

If your constants are wrong you would not be able to find the flaw.

We have on verified our constants on very limited basis because of our technology but we are expanding them to area's we can not know are true. This is typical of science. Before telescopes the sun revolved around the earth. Our technology is limiting us.

 

[PolyHedral]

If your constants are wrong you would not be able to find the flaw.

The constants cannot possibly be wrong, because the framework is built on the constants.

Remember earlier I mentioned that the speed of light is 299,792,458m/s? There is no error in that figure, because the meter is defined as the distance light travels in one 299792458th of a second.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Based on the known universe or the Actual universe. I am unclear, on how you could have a universal constant when you can't observe the whole universe.

Belief in the unknown is it not.

All current observations confirm the constants.
The prediction in science is that further observations will also confirm the constants. Thus making the conclusion falsifiable. A necessity in the scientific method.
This is not faith. It is pure reason.

When we observe the motion of objects in distant galaxies, it confirms the constant of gravity.
When we observe the movement of light in distant galaxies, it confirms the constant of light.

To doubt those findings based on galaxies not yet observed is to doubt the very Laws of the Universe. Laws which are necessary for the Universe to exist.
A very unreasonable position to hold. And a position that requires more faith than a belief in magical unicorns.

 

[bobhikes]

All current observations confirm the constants.
The prediction in science is that further observations will also confirm the constants. (belief bobhikes)Thus making the conclusion falsifiable. (all beliefs are falsifiable bobhikes).A necessity in the scientific method.
This is not faith. It is pure reason.

When we observe the motion of objects in distant galaxies, it confirms the constant of gravity.
When we observe the movement of light in distant galaxies, it confirms the constant of light.

To doubt those findings based on galaxies not yet observed is to doubt the very Laws of the Universe. Laws which are necessary for the Universe to exist.
A very unreasonable position to hold. And a position that requires more faith than a belief in magical unicorns.

All findings on galaxies and planets outside of this solar system are based on the speed of light. If that one belief is wrong almost all of the laws of the universe are wrong.

 

[tumbleweed41]

If your constants are wrong you would not be able to find the flaw.

We have on verified our constants on very limited basis because of our technology but we are expanding them to area's we can not know are true. This is typical of science. Before telescopes the sun revolved around the earth. Our technology is limiting us.

Even before telescopes, true scientific thinkers were able to see that the sun did not revolve around the earth, due to failed predictive observations.
Copernicus proposed the Earth and other planets revolved around the sun half a century before Galileo confirmed this with the then recently developed telescope.
Copernicus came to his conclusion by seeing that geocentric ideas did not match observational data. But a sun-centered system did match observational data.

 

[tumbleweed41]

All findings on galaxies and planets outside of this solar system are based on the speed of light. If that one belief is wrong almost all of the laws of the universe are wrong.

You still do not understand how predictability and falsifiability make the above position ridiculously flawed, do you?

 

[bobhikes]

You still do not understand how predictability and falsifiability make the above position ridiculously flawed, do you?

I understand that you can't see what I see. You are blinded by the faith in Science of today.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I understand that you can't see what I see. You are blinded by the faith in Science of today.

Like I said...


To doubt those findings based on galaxies not yet observed is to doubt the very Laws of the Universe. Laws which are necessary for the Universe to exist.
A very unreasonable position to hold. And a position that requires more faith than a belief in magical unicorns.