Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

 Posts: 299 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/4/2015 12:17:05 AMPosted: 2 years agoSo if in a moving vehicle traveling with a speed v, a flashlight is switched on, does light travel with a speed of c+v to an observer on the ground? And doesn't this violate the cosmic speed limit?
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/4/2015 12:31:28 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/4/2015 12:17:05 AM, Cotton_Candy wrote:So if in a moving vehicle traveling with a speed v, a flashlight is switched on, does light travel with a speed of c+v to an observer on the ground? And doesn't this violate the cosmic speed limit?Maybe this will help
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/4/2015 12:36:31 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/4/2015 12:17:05 AM, Cotton_Candy wrote:So if in a moving vehicle traveling with a speed v, a flashlight is switched on, does light travel with a speed of c+v to an observer on the ground? And doesn't this violate the cosmic speed limit?To sum it up the speed of light is a max speed limit. No matter what is added to this max limit, the max limit will be all that is realized.then becomes why is this the max speed limit. Well as the vehicle moves forward the it's time slows down. So the speed of light when measured as distance covered in a an amount of time, we see that the amount of time changes. But only to someone looking in.
 Posts: 299 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/4/2015 2:35:30 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/4/2015 12:36:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:17:05 AM, Cotton_Candy wrote:So if in a moving vehicle traveling with a speed v, a flashlight is switched on, does light travel with a speed of c+v to an observer on the ground? And doesn't this violate the cosmic speed limit?To sum it up the speed of light is a max speed limit. No matter what is added to this max limit, the max limit will be all that is realized.then becomes why is this the max speed limit. Well as the vehicle moves forward the it's time slows down. So the speed of light when measured as distance covered in a an amount of time, we see that the amount of time changes. But only to someone looking in.Hmm doesn't reall really sound intuitive.
 Posts: 9,818 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/4/2015 5:53:06 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/4/2015 12:17:05 AM, Cotton_Candy wrote:So if in a moving vehicle traveling with a speed v, a flashlight is switched on, does light travel with a speed of c+v to an observer on the ground? And doesn't this violate the cosmic speed limit?No, the speed of light is constant (in a vacuum). The light from the torch will still travel at a speed of c (or very slightly less in the Earth's atmosphere).Fu-Ming: "So explain to us how wasps look like wasps 100 million years later. I'll wait". Me: "What part of the theory of evolution states that a species must change? I'll wait". Fu-Ming: "Mutations don't care whether a change is needed or not". Me: "What part of the theory of evolution states that a species must change? I'll wait". Fu-Ming: *crickets*
 Posts: 9,818 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/4/2015 6:00:12 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/4/2015 2:35:30 AM, Cotton_Candy wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:36:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:17:05 AM, Cotton_Candy wrote:So if in a moving vehicle traveling with a speed v, a flashlight is switched on, does light travel with a speed of c+v to an observer on the ground? And doesn't this violate the cosmic speed limit?To sum it up the speed of light is a max speed limit. No matter what is added to this max limit, the max limit will be all that is realized.then becomes why is this the max speed limit. Well as the vehicle moves forward the it's time slows down. So the speed of light when measured as distance covered in a an amount of time, we see that the amount of time changes. But only to someone looking in.Hmm doesn't reall really sound intuitive.In practice v is negligible compared to c, so it is much ado about nothing. If you were talking about v being at something close to the speed of light, then there is an explanation for what happens and why, but I'm not sure if you are interested.Fu-Ming: "So explain to us how wasps look like wasps 100 million years later. I'll wait". Me: "What part of the theory of evolution states that a species must change? I'll wait". Fu-Ming: "Mutations don't care whether a change is needed or not". Me: "What part of the theory of evolution states that a species must change? I'll wait". Fu-Ming: *crickets*
 Posts: 13,644 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/4/2015 8:21:22 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/4/2015 12:17:05 AM, Cotton_Candy wrote:So if in a moving vehicle traveling with a speed v, a flashlight is switched on, does light travel with a speed of c+v to an observer on the ground? And doesn't this violate the cosmic speed limit?Yes, it is indeed counter-intuitive to what we are used to observing.Light (electromagnetic radiation), which is massless, is not governed by the same principles as objects with mass, it is governed by the properties of space, specifically, the permittivity (electric) and permeability (magnetic) of space, which acts like a barrier to the speed. Because of this, light is always measured at the same speed no matter what speed an observer is traveling, whether it is slow or fast, the speed will always be measured the same, it is NEVER added to the velocity of the observer. Hope that helps.Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
 Posts: 299 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/4/2015 10:28:52 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/4/2015 8:21:22 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:17:05 AM, Cotton_Candy wrote:So if in a moving vehicle traveling with a speed v, a flashlight is switched on, does light travel with a speed of c+v to an observer on the ground? And doesn't this violate the cosmic speed limit?Yes, it is indeed counter-intuitive to what we are used to observing.Light (electromagnetic radiation), which is massless, is not governed by the same principles as objects with mass, it is governed by the properties of space, specifically, the permittivity (electric) and permeability (magnetic) of space, which acts like a barrier to the speed. Because of this, light is always measured at the same speed no matter what speed an observer is traveling, whether it is slow or fast, the speed will always be measured the same, it is NEVER added to the velocity of the observer. Hope that helps.Yep that makes some sense!
 Posts: 13,644 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/4/2015 11:12:16 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/4/2015 10:28:52 AM, Cotton_Candy wrote:At 7/4/2015 8:21:22 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:17:05 AM, Cotton_Candy wrote:So if in a moving vehicle traveling with a speed v, a flashlight is switched on, does light travel with a speed of c+v to an observer on the ground? And doesn't this violate the cosmic speed limit?Yes, it is indeed counter-intuitive to what we are used to observing.Light (electromagnetic radiation), which is massless, is not governed by the same principles as objects with mass, it is governed by the properties of space, specifically, the permittivity (electric) and permeability (magnetic) of space, which acts like a barrier to the speed. Because of this, light is always measured at the same speed no matter what speed an observer is traveling, whether it is slow or fast, the speed will always be measured the same, it is NEVER added to the velocity of the observer. Hope that helps.Yep that makes some sense!What's even more difficult to wrap one's head around is when you have two objects with mass that can move at near light speeds.For example, we have two observers in spaceships moving towards one another at 85% the speed of light. One would assume we add those together to get 170% the speed of light, just like we would add together the speed of two cars moving towards one another. In other words, the combined speeds of the spaceships should add up to more than the speed of light, but it doesn't, it is always less than c. This is where the relativistic velocity equations come into effect and a good understanding of reference frames and how to transform the values of one frame to another.Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
 Posts: 1,309 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/4/2015 12:55:40 PMPosted: 2 years agoyou can't put more then a gallon in a gallon jug unless it is a special scientific E X P A N D I N G jug that in theory will still be a gallon jug after expanding it to hold more then a gallon.what does what I wrote have to do with anything?just a prime example of scientific theory at work.There are many that believe that you can make a electrical device that has a generator for creating the electricity and a electric powered motor to supply the motion and that IF you put some sort of gear box or such between the generator and the power motor that you can create MORE electricity then the electric motor powering the generator uses.it can't be done because of something called resistance.some space cadet might say, just oil it up to reduce the friction.don't work any better then feeding a dead horse to get it to work.EE: most overly wonderful and then some and super scientist for the starsyou wanna bee BIG heads know if Superman is more super then Mighty Mouse is mighty?what does that have to do with science you may ponder?if you don't know the correct answer already it is because you don't choose to know as it might in the way of your Klingon speech lessons and play time on the holodeck.WARNING Will Robinsontry and think before you reply as I AM the captain and you cadets are the new guys that don't even have names as your just bit part players that daydream of being in the captains chair when you can't handle the potty chair.did any of what I wrote upset you or make you feel angry or such?if it did you need to GROW UP if you want to try for the captains chair.you are going to IGNORE the WARNING and try and be witty and such are you NOT..make it soproceed at impulse speed...Life is what YOU make it, Most just try and fake it...
 Posts: 2,402 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/4/2015 6:55:51 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/4/2015 12:36:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:17:05 AM, Cotton_Candy wrote:So if in a moving vehicle traveling with a speed v, a flashlight is switched on, does light travel with a speed of c+v to an observer on the ground? And doesn't this violate the cosmic speed limit?To sum it up the speed of light is a max speed limit. No matter what is added to this max limit, the max limit will be all that is realized.then becomes why is this the max speed limit. Well as the vehicle moves forward the it's time slows down. So the speed of light when measured as distance covered in a an amount of time, we see that the amount of time changes. But only to someone looking in.Are you claiming that nothing can exceed the speed of light? Or ever has?Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/4/2015 7:04:48 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/4/2015 6:55:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:36:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:17:05 AM, Cotton_Candy wrote:So if in a moving vehicle traveling with a speed v, a flashlight is switched on, does light travel with a speed of c+v to an observer on the ground? And doesn't this violate the cosmic speed limit?To sum it up the speed of light is a max speed limit. No matter what is added to this max limit, the max limit will be all that is realized.then becomes why is this the max speed limit. Well as the vehicle moves forward the it's time slows down. So the speed of light when measured as distance covered in a an amount of time, we see that the amount of time changes. But only to someone looking in.Are you claiming that nothing can exceed the speed of light? Or ever has?No entity or unit has ever gone faster than the speed of light,
 Posts: 2,402 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/4/2015 7:09:37 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/4/2015 7:04:48 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 6:55:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:36:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:17:05 AM, Cotton_Candy wrote:So if in a moving vehicle traveling with a speed v, a flashlight is switched on, does light travel with a speed of c+v to an observer on the ground? And doesn't this violate the cosmic speed limit?To sum it up the speed of light is a max speed limit. No matter what is added to this max limit, the max limit will be all that is realized.then becomes why is this the max speed limit. Well as the vehicle moves forward the it's time slows down. So the speed of light when measured as distance covered in a an amount of time, we see that the amount of time changes. But only to someone looking in.Are you claiming that nothing can exceed the speed of light? Or ever has?No entity or unit has ever gone faster than the speed of light,I beg to differ, my friend.Most Cosmologists agree that plasma particles immediately following the Big Bang some 13.8 Billion Years Ago exceed 186,000 miles-per-second. This was at aorund 10 ^-43rd of a second--before atoms were even formed.And there is this...........http://www.livescience.com...Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
 Posts: 2,402 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/4/2015 7:12:34 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/4/2015 7:09:37 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:04:48 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 6:55:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:36:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:17:05 AM, Cotton_Candy wrote:So if in a moving vehicle traveling with a speed v, a flashlight is switched on, does light travel with a speed of c+v to an observer on the ground? And doesn't this violate the cosmic speed limit?To sum it up the speed of light is a max speed limit. No matter what is added to this max limit, the max limit will be all that is realized.then becomes why is this the max speed limit. Well as the vehicle moves forward the it's time slows down. So the speed of light when measured as distance covered in a an amount of time, we see that the amount of time changes. But only to someone looking in.Are you claiming that nothing can exceed the speed of light? Or ever has?No entity or unit has ever gone faster than the speed of light,I beg to differ, my friend.Most Cosmologists agree that plasma particles immediately following the Big Bang some 13.8 Billion Years Ago exceed 186,000 miles-per-second. This was at aorund 10 ^-43rd of a second--before atoms were even formed.And there is this...........http://www.livescience.com...This too!http://www.businessinsider.com...Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/4/2015 7:20:49 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/4/2015 7:09:37 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:04:48 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 6:55:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:36:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:17:05 AM, Cotton_Candy wrote:So if in a moving vehicle traveling with a speed v, a flashlight is switched on, does light travel with a speed of c+v to an observer on the ground? And doesn't this violate the cosmic speed limit?To sum it up the speed of light is a max speed limit. No matter what is added to this max limit, the max limit will be all that is realized.then becomes why is this the max speed limit. Well as the vehicle moves forward the it's time slows down. So the speed of light when measured as distance covered in a an amount of time, we see that the amount of time changes. But only to someone looking in.Are you claiming that nothing can exceed the speed of light? Or ever has?No entity or unit has ever gone faster than the speed of light,I beg to differ, my friend.Most Cosmologists agree that plasma particles immediately following the Big Bang some 13.8 Billion Years Ago exceed 186,000 miles-per-second. This was at aorund 10 ^-43rd of a second--before atoms were even formed.This the distance between the source and reciever is growing with time. Co moving coordinates do not break light speed. The units still moved through space at light speed.And there is this...........http://www.livescience.com...The action between two entangled particles is instant. This test demonstrated that the action is AT LEAST 10,000 times faster than light. We don't have tools accurate enough to measure 'instantaneously'But again there is no unit or entity or information being sent between the enrangled particles.As for an explaination for the action there is a postulated explaination that entangled particles are bound by a worm hole. So changes in one particle propagate to the other through a plank distance wide wormhole instead of the distance they are seperated by.
 Posts: 13,644 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/4/2015 7:27:24 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/4/2015 7:09:37 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:04:48 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 6:55:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:36:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:17:05 AM, Cotton_Candy wrote:So if in a moving vehicle traveling with a speed v, a flashlight is switched on, does light travel with a speed of c+v to an observer on the ground? And doesn't this violate the cosmic speed limit?To sum it up the speed of light is a max speed limit. No matter what is added to this max limit, the max limit will be all that is realized.then becomes why is this the max speed limit. Well as the vehicle moves forward the it's time slows down. So the speed of light when measured as distance covered in a an amount of time, we see that the amount of time changes. But only to someone looking in.Are you claiming that nothing can exceed the speed of light? Or ever has?No entity or unit has ever gone faster than the speed of light,I beg to differ, my friend.Most Cosmologists agree that plasma particles immediately following the Big Bang some 13.8 Billion Years Ago exceed 186,000 miles-per-second. This was at aorund 10 ^-43rd of a second--before atoms were even formed.Are you absolutely sure about that? Can you provide a citation?And there is this...........http://www.livescience.com...That's the problem with those sensationalized pop-sci articles, they confuse the laymen making them believe things that aren't true.Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
 Posts: 2,402 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/4/2015 7:27:33 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/4/2015 7:20:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:09:37 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:04:48 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 6:55:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:36:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:17:05 AM, Cotton_Candy wrote:So if in a moving vehicle traveling with a speed v, a flashlight is switched on, does light travel with a speed of c+v to an observer on the ground? And doesn't this violate the cosmic speed limit?To sum it up the speed of light is a max speed limit. No matter what is added to this max limit, the max limit will be all that is realized.then becomes why is this the max speed limit. Well as the vehicle moves forward the it's time slows down. So the speed of light when measured as distance covered in a an amount of time, we see that the amount of time changes. But only to someone looking in.Are you claiming that nothing can exceed the speed of light? Or ever has?No entity or unit has ever gone faster than the speed of light,I beg to differ, my friend.Most Cosmologists agree that plasma particles immediately following the Big Bang some 13.8 Billion Years Ago exceed 186,000 miles-per-second. This was at aorund 10 ^-43rd of a second--before atoms were even formed.This the distance between the source and reciever is growing with time. Co moving coordinates do not break light speed. The units still moved through space at light speed.And there is this...........http://www.livescience.com...The action between two entangled particles is instant. This test demonstrated that the action is AT LEAST 10,000 times faster than light. We don't have tools accurate enough to measure 'instantaneously'But again there is no unit or entity or information being sent between the enrangled particles.As for an explaination for the action there is a postulated explaination that entangled particles are bound by a worm hole. So changes in one particle propagate to the other through a plank distance wide wormhole instead of the distance they are seperated by.Obviously we DO have the tools, as the LHC was mentioned in the link.it is more accurate to say that some things may be viewed as occurring "simultaneously" because we do not have the tools to differentiate between that and the incredibly-fast speed that would make them appear so.And in regards to your opening statement that those pre-atomic Big Bang articles only traveled at light speed: give me a minute and I will find a link to show that is not true. (I used it on another thread before.)Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
 Posts: 2,402 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/4/2015 7:29:51 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/4/2015 7:27:33 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:20:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:09:37 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:04:48 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 6:55:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:36:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:17:05 AM, Cotton_Candy wrote:So if in a moving vehicle traveling with a speed v, a flashlight is switched on, does light travel with a speed of c+v to an observer on the ground? And doesn't this violate the cosmic speed limit?To sum it up the speed of light is a max speed limit. No matter what is added to this max limit, the max limit will be all that is realized.then becomes why is this the max speed limit. Well as the vehicle moves forward the it's time slows down. So the speed of light when measured as distance covered in a an amount of time, we see that the amount of time changes. But only to someone looking in.Are you claiming that nothing can exceed the speed of light? Or ever has?No entity or unit has ever gone faster than the speed of light,I beg to differ, my friend.Most Cosmologists agree that plasma particles immediately following the Big Bang some 13.8 Billion Years Ago exceed 186,000 miles-per-second. This was at aorund 10 ^-43rd of a second--before atoms were even formed.This the distance between the source and reciever is growing with time. Co moving coordinates do not break light speed. The units still moved through space at light speed.And there is this...........http://www.livescience.com...The action between two entangled particles is instant. This test demonstrated that the action is AT LEAST 10,000 times faster than light. We don't have tools accurate enough to measure 'instantaneously'But again there is no unit or entity or information being sent between the enrangled particles.As for an explaination for the action there is a postulated explaination that entangled particles are bound by a worm hole. So changes in one particle propagate to the other through a plank distance wide wormhole instead of the distance they are seperated by.Obviously we DO have the tools, as the LHC was mentioned in the link.it is more accurate to say that some things may be viewed as occurring "simultaneously" because we do not have the tools to differentiate between that and the incredibly-fast speed that would make them appear so.And in regards to your opening statement that those pre-atomic Big Bang articles only traveled at light speed: give me a minute and I will find a link to show that is not true. (I used it on another thread before.)Here is that link...........http://bigthink.com...Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/4/2015 9:01:01 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/4/2015 7:29:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:27:33 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:20:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:09:37 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:04:48 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 6:55:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:36:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:17:05 AM, Cotton_Candy wrote:So if in a moving vehicle traveling with a speed v, a flashlight is switched on, does light travel with a speed of c+v to an observer on the ground? And doesn't this violate the cosmic speed limit?To sum it up the speed of light is a max speed limit. No matter what is added to this max limit, the max limit will be all that is realized.then becomes why is this the max speed limit. Well as the vehicle moves forward the it's time slows down. So the speed of light when measured as distance covered in a an amount of time, we see that the amount of time changes. But only to someone looking in.Are you claiming that nothing can exceed the speed of light? Or ever has?No entity or unit has ever gone faster than the speed of light,I beg to differ, my friend.Most Cosmologists agree that plasma particles immediately following the Big Bang some 13.8 Billion Years Ago exceed 186,000 miles-per-second. This was at aorund 10 ^-43rd of a second--before atoms were even formed.This the distance between the source and reciever is growing with time. Co moving coordinates do not break light speed. The units still moved through space at light speed.And there is this...........http://www.livescience.com...The action between two entangled particles is instant. This test demonstrated that the action is AT LEAST 10,000 times faster than light. We don't have tools accurate enough to measure 'instantaneously'But again there is no unit or entity or information being sent between the enrangled particles.As for an explaination for the action there is a postulated explaination that entangled particles are bound by a worm hole. So changes in one particle propagate to the other through a plank distance wide wormhole instead of the distance they are seperated by.Obviously we DO have the tools, as the LHC was mentioned in the link.it is more accurate to say that some things may be viewed as occurring "simultaneously" because we do not have the tools to differentiate between that and the incredibly-fast speed that would make them appear so.And in regards to your opening statement that those pre-atomic Big Bang articles only traveled at light speed: give me a minute and I will find a link to show that is not true. (I used it on another thread before.)Here is that link...........http://bigthink.com...Those things themselves, from the perspective of a non moving observer would be that no entity or unit of anything moved faster than the speed of light.Te action of entangled particles has nothing being transmitted between the distance that separates them. They snap into their respective alignments supposedly instantly. The best way to reconcile this is probably the theory of a mini warm hole connecting them.The big bang particles are comoving points. Meaning now 13.8 billion years later we look to where the source of light is. And we look at where we are at. When we take that distance and divide by the time we get a speed enormously bigger than the speed of light. You have to understand that the distance between us and the source has been growing. like a rubber band.During the time the light was traveling at the speed of light, the distance behind it grew.
 Posts: 2,402 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/4/2015 9:19:32 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/4/2015 9:01:01 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:29:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:27:33 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:20:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:09:37 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:04:48 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 6:55:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:36:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:17:05 AM, Cotton_Candy wrote:So if in a moving vehicle traveling with a speed v, a flashlight is switched on, does light travel with a speed of c+v to an observer on the ground? And doesn't this violate the cosmic speed limit?To sum it up the speed of light is a max speed limit. No matter what is added to this max limit, the max limit will be all that is realized.then becomes why is this the max speed limit. Well as the vehicle moves forward the it's time slows down. So the speed of light when measured as distance covered in a an amount of time, we see that the amount of time changes. But only to someone looking in.Are you claiming that nothing can exceed the speed of light? Or ever has?No entity or unit has ever gone faster than the speed of light,I beg to differ, my friend.Most Cosmologists agree that plasma particles immediately following the Big Bang some 13.8 Billion Years Ago exceed 186,000 miles-per-second. This was at aorund 10 ^-43rd of a second--before atoms were even formed.This the distance between the source and reciever is growing with time. Co moving coordinates do not break light speed. The units still moved through space at light speed.And there is this...........http://www.livescience.com...The action between two entangled particles is instant. This test demonstrated that the action is AT LEAST 10,000 times faster than light. We don't have tools accurate enough to measure 'instantaneously'But again there is no unit or entity or information being sent between the enrangled particles.As for an explaination for the action there is a postulated explaination that entangled particles are bound by a worm hole. So changes in one particle propagate to the other through a plank distance wide wormhole instead of the distance they are seperated by.Obviously we DO have the tools, as the LHC was mentioned in the link.it is more accurate to say that some things may be viewed as occurring "simultaneously" because we do not have the tools to differentiate between that and the incredibly-fast speed that would make them appear so.And in regards to your opening statement that those pre-atomic Big Bang articles only traveled at light speed: give me a minute and I will find a link to show that is not true. (I used it on another thread before.)Here is that link...........http://bigthink.com...Those things themselves, from the perspective of a non moving observer would be that no entity or unit of anything moved faster than the speed of light.Te action of entangled particles has nothing being transmitted between the distance that separates them. They snap into their respective alignments supposedly instantly. The best way to reconcile this is probably the theory of a mini warm hole connecting them.The big bang particles are comoving points. Meaning now 13.8 billion years later we look to where the source of light is. And we look at where we are at. When we take that distance and divide by the time we get a speed enormously bigger than the speed of light. You have to understand that the distance between us and the source has been growing. like a rubber band.During the time the light was traveling at the speed of light, the distance behind it grew.You said that according to the perspective of an observer those things would not exceed light speed.Perspective. So what? Since when does one's perspective, or simply "the way which it appears to him at the time" have anything to do with fact? LOLIn Astronomy there is a term called "retrograde" where a planet "appears" to be moving backwards. But we know this certainly is not the case.You have thus far said nothing, nor linked anything, that disproves my links-- on both the sub-atomic particles in the Super Collider, or the Big Bang pre-atomic particles--all being said to have exceed light speed.Basically all you have said is, "Well, it sure wouldn't have looked likethey did."So, all due respect, you are gonna have to do better to sway me on this, my friend.Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/4/2015 9:24:08 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/4/2015 9:19:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 9:01:01 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:29:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:27:33 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:20:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:09:37 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:04:48 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 6:55:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:36:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:17:05 AM, Cotton_Candy wrote:So if in a moving vehicle traveling with a speed v, a flashlight is switched on, does light travel with a speed of c+v to an observer on the ground? And doesn't this violate the cosmic speed limit?To sum it up the speed of light is a max speed limit. No matter what is added to this max limit, the max limit will be all that is realized.then becomes why is this the max speed limit. Well as the vehicle moves forward the it's time slows down. So the speed of light when measured as distance covered in a an amount of time, we see that the amount of time changes. But only to someone looking in.Are you claiming that nothing can exceed the speed of light? Or ever has?No entity or unit has ever gone faster than the speed of light,I beg to differ, my friend.Most Cosmologists agree that plasma particles immediately following the Big Bang some 13.8 Billion Years Ago exceed 186,000 miles-per-second. This was at aorund 10 ^-43rd of a second--before atoms were even formed.This the distance between the source and reciever is growing with time. Co moving coordinates do not break light speed. The units still moved through space at light speed.And there is this...........http://www.livescience.com...The action between two entangled particles is instant. This test demonstrated that the action is AT LEAST 10,000 times faster than light. We don't have tools accurate enough to measure 'instantaneously'But again there is no unit or entity or information being sent between the enrangled particles.As for an explaination for the action there is a postulated explaination that entangled particles are bound by a worm hole. So changes in one particle propagate to the other through a plank distance wide wormhole instead of the distance they are seperated by.Obviously we DO have the tools, as the LHC was mentioned in the link.it is more accurate to say that some things may be viewed as occurring "simultaneously" because we do not have the tools to differentiate between that and the incredibly-fast speed that would make them appear so.And in regards to your opening statement that those pre-atomic Big Bang articles only traveled at light speed: give me a minute and I will find a link to show that is not true. (I used it on another thread before.)Here is that link...........http://bigthink.com...Those things themselves, from the perspective of a non moving observer would be that no entity or unit of anything moved faster than the speed of light.Te action of entangled particles has nothing being transmitted between the distance that separates them. They snap into their respective alignments supposedly instantly. The best way to reconcile this is probably the theory of a mini warm hole connecting them.The big bang particles are comoving points. Meaning now 13.8 billion years later we look to where the source of light is. And we look at where we are at. When we take that distance and divide by the time we get a speed enormously bigger than the speed of light. You have to understand that the distance between us and the source has been growing. like a rubber band.During the time the light was traveling at the speed of light, the distance behind it grew.You said that according to the perspective of an observer those things would not exceed light speed.Perspective. So what? Since when does one's perspective, or simply "the way which it appears to him at the time" have anything to do with fact? LOLIn Astronomy there is a term called "retrograde" where a planet "appears" to be moving backwards. But we know this certainly is not the case.You have thus far said nothing, nor linked anything, that disproves my links-- on both the sub-atomic particles in the Super Collider, or the Big Bang pre-atomic particles--all being said to have exceed light speed.Basically all you have said is, "Well, it sure wouldn't have looked likethey did."So, all due respect, you are gonna have to do better to sway me on this, my friend.https://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.washington.edu...
 Posts: 2,402 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/4/2015 9:37:38 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/4/2015 9:24:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 9:19:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 9:01:01 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:29:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:27:33 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:20:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:09:37 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 7:04:48 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 6:55:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:36:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 7/4/2015 12:17:05 AM, Cotton_Candy wrote:So if in a moving vehicle traveling with a speed v, a flashlight is switched on, does light travel with a speed of c+v to an observer on the ground? And doesn't this violate the cosmic speed limit?To sum it up the speed of light is a max speed limit. No matter what is added to this max limit, the max limit will be all that is realized.then becomes why is this the max speed limit. Well as the vehicle moves forward the it's time slows down. So the speed of light when measured as distance covered in a an amount of time, we see that the amount of time changes. But only to someone looking in.Are you claiming that nothing can exceed the speed of light? Or ever has?No entity or unit has ever gone faster than the speed of light,I beg to differ, my friend.Most Cosmologists agree that plasma particles immediately following the Big Bang some 13.8 Billion Years Ago exceed 186,000 miles-per-second. This was at aorund 10 ^-43rd of a second--before atoms were even formed.This the distance between the source and reciever is growing with time. Co moving coordinates do not break light speed. The units still moved through space at light speed.And there is this...........http://www.livescience.com...The action between two entangled particles is instant. This test demonstrated that the action is AT LEAST 10,000 times faster than light. We don't have tools accurate enough to measure 'instantaneously'But again there is no unit or entity or information being sent between the enrangled particles.As for an explaination for the action there is a postulated explaination that entangled particles are bound by a worm hole. So changes in one particle propagate to the other through a plank distance wide wormhole instead of the distance they are seperated by.Obviously we DO have the tools, as the LHC was mentioned in the link.it is more accurate to say that some things may be viewed as occurring "simultaneously" because we do not have the tools to differentiate between that and the incredibly-fast speed that would make them appear so.And in regards to your opening statement that those pre-atomic Big Bang articles only traveled at light speed: give me a minute and I will find a link to show that is not true. (I used it on another thread before.)Here is that link...........http://bigthink.com...Those things themselves, from the perspective of a non moving observer would be that no entity or unit of anything moved faster than the speed of light.Te action of entangled particles has nothing being transmitted between the distance that separates them. They snap into their respective alignments supposedly instantly. The best way to reconcile this is probably the theory of a mini warm hole connecting them.The big bang particles are comoving points. Meaning now 13.8 billion years later we look to where the source of light is. And we look at where we are at. When we take that distance and divide by the time we get a speed enormously bigger than the speed of light. You have to understand that the distance between us and the source has been growing. like a rubber band.During the time the light was traveling at the speed of light, the distance behind it grew.You said that according to the perspective of an observer those things would not exceed light speed.Perspective. So what? Since when does one's perspective, or simply "the way which it appears to him at the time" have anything to do with fact? LOLIn Astronomy there is a term called "retrograde" where a planet "appears" to be moving backwards. But we know this certainly is not the case.You have thus far said nothing, nor linked anything, that disproves my links-- on both the sub-atomic particles in the Super Collider, or the Big Bang pre-atomic particles--all being said to have exceed light speed.Basically all you have said is, "Well, it sure wouldn't have looked likethey did."So, all due respect, you are gonna have to do better to sway me on this, my friend.https://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.washington.edu...Sorry, those links didn't do much for me, either. LOLI mean, really: the first one on "Co-moving Distance" only explained the phenomena you mentioned, i.e. on how FTL (faster than light) might appear.Nowhere in it did I see any sort of refutation of FTL traveling ability or possibility.And in the 2nd link, WTF? All I saw was a postulate that traveling through a wormhole is not feasible. And again, nary a word refuting FTL travel. Or anything about initial Big Bang particle speeds, nor those in a Super Collider.But. as this thread is getting lengthy, we may just have to agree to disagree on this topic.Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
 Posts: 13,644 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/5/2015 9:33:08 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/4/2015 7:29:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:And in regards to your opening statement that those pre-atomic Big Bang articles only traveled at light speed: give me a minute and I will find a link to show that is not true. (I used it on another thread before.)Here is that link...........http://bigthink.com...Yet, another pop-sci laymen's article. But, at the very least, it shows you are wrong about that.The theory shows that SPACE expanded faster than light and NOT the electromagnetic radiation. Once again, those pop-sci articles do little more than confuse the uninformed.Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
 Posts: 13,644 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/5/2015 9:37:20 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/4/2015 9:19:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:In Astronomy there is a term called "retrograde" where a planet "appears" to be moving backwards. But we know this certainly is not the case.Wtf are you talking about now? Retrograde means a planet is rotating in the opposite direction as other planets in the system.Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
 Posts: 13,644 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/5/2015 9:41:04 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/4/2015 9:37:38 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:Nowhere in it did I see any sort of refutation of FTL traveling ability or possibility.But. as this thread is getting lengthy, we may just have to agree to disagree on this topic.Disagree? On what? There is no disagreement, nothing has ever been shown to move faster than light as this would violate Special Relativity, which has not been accomplished yet and most likely won't. It would take MORE than all the energy combined in the entire universe to accelerate a particle to even attain the speed of light. That ain't gonna happen.Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
 Posts: 2,402 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/5/2015 3:27:57 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/5/2015 9:37:20 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:At 7/4/2015 9:19:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:In Astronomy there is a term called "retrograde" where a planet "appears" to be moving backwards. But we know this certainly is not the case.Wtf are you talking about now? Retrograde means a planet is rotating in the opposite direction as other planets in the system.https://en.wikipedia.org...Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
 Posts: 2,402 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/5/2015 3:30:12 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/5/2015 9:41:04 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:At 7/4/2015 9:37:38 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:Nowhere in it did I see any sort of refutation of FTL traveling ability or possibility.But. as this thread is getting lengthy, we may just have to agree to disagree on this topic.Disagree? On what? There is no disagreement, nothing has ever been shown to move faster than light as this would violate Special Relativity, which has not been accomplished yet and most likely won't. It would take MORE than all the energy combined in the entire universe to accelerate a particle to even attain the speed of light. That ain't gonna happen.Can you please look at my links?Why do you continually post personal-opinion-only rebuttals without checking the facts shown in my links? Read the one about the sub-atomic particles in the LHC first.Just an idea, ya know> Checking facts before spouting off, and all.LOLScience Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
 Posts: 13,644 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/5/2015 3:55:57 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/5/2015 3:27:57 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/5/2015 9:37:20 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:At 7/4/2015 9:19:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:In Astronomy there is a term called "retrograde" where a planet "appears" to be moving backwards. But we know this certainly is not the case.Wtf are you talking about now? Retrograde means a planet is rotating in the opposite direction as other planets in the system.https://en.wikipedia.org...Ah, retrograde "Motion". You should have said so.Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
 Posts: 13,644 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/5/2015 3:57:44 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/5/2015 3:30:12 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/5/2015 9:41:04 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:At 7/4/2015 9:37:38 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:Nowhere in it did I see any sort of refutation of FTL traveling ability or possibility.But. as this thread is getting lengthy, we may just have to agree to disagree on this topic.Disagree? On what? There is no disagreement, nothing has ever been shown to move faster than light as this would violate Special Relativity, which has not been accomplished yet and most likely won't. It would take MORE than all the energy combined in the entire universe to accelerate a particle to even attain the speed of light. That ain't gonna happen.Can you please look at my links?Why do you continually post personal-opinion-only rebuttals without checking the facts shown in my links? Read the one about the sub-atomic particles in the LHC first.Just an idea, ya know> Checking facts before spouting off, and all.LOLWhy would I bother looking at your pop-sci links when I understand perfectly well nothing goes faster than light? If it did, Relativity would have been refuted by now, but it hasn't, so stfu.Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
 Posts: 2,402 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/5/2015 4:05:42 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 7/5/2015 3:57:44 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:At 7/5/2015 3:30:12 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:At 7/5/2015 9:41:04 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:At 7/4/2015 9:37:38 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:Nowhere in it did I see any sort of refutation of FTL traveling ability or possibility.But. as this thread is getting lengthy, we may just have to agree to disagree on this topic.Disagree? On what? There is no disagreement, nothing has ever been shown to move faster than light as this would violate Special Relativity, which has not been accomplished yet and most likely won't. It would take MORE than all the energy combined in the entire universe to accelerate a particle to even attain the speed of light. That ain't gonna happen.Can you please look at my links?Why do you continually post personal-opinion-only rebuttals without checking the facts shown in my links? Read the one about the sub-atomic particles in the LHC first.Just an idea, ya know> Checking facts before spouting off, and all.LOLWhy would I bother looking at your pop-sci links when I understand perfectly well nothing goes faster than light? If it did, Relativity would have been refuted by now, but it hasn't, so stfu.So you admit you did not read the links which clearly show yo to be wrong.You also obviously do not understand Relativity. (This is explained as well in one of the links).Since you ignore facts it is probably best and more fitting for you to STFU, maam.Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.