Christopher Newport University! Believe it or not, a personal friend of mine has a degree in Biology and said that she went into thorough study of Intelligent Design in the classroom. I talked to someone in the grocery store the other day, a student from CNU and she also stated the same thing. The Biology courses were teaching Intelligent Design at Christopher Newport University. This is the feedback I'm getting from the academia. No I am not trolling...I am giving actual personal accounts of people who have stated that CNU is teaching Intelligent Design in classrooms.
believe it NOT.
Of course someone calls him on it with a link to the CNU cataloge:
If you look through the catalogue there is nary a mention of ID being studied in any of the courses. But, as shown below, evolution certainly is.
Christopher Newport University Catalogue of the Department of Biology, Chemistry, and Environmental Science.
QUOTE
BIOL 114. Topics in Evolution and Diversity (3-3-0) INW
Fal and Spring.
Through topics in evolution and diversity, this Area of Inquiry course will examine the process of science, history of science, and how science affects contemporary thought and society.
BIOL 115. Topics in Ecology and the Environment (3-3-0)
BIOL 215. Biological Evolution (3-3-0)
Prerequisite: BIOL 107/109L or 151/151L.
Spring.
Principles of biological evolution: review of genetics, detailed discussion of population genetics, natural selection, adaptation, isolating mechanisms, speciation, and phylogenetic inference.
BIOL 320. Natural History of the Vertebrates (4-3-4)
Corequisite: BIOL 320L.
Fall, odd years.
A survey of the living and extinct taxa of vertebrates. Evolutionary relationships, morphology, physiology, ecology, and behavior of the major living vertebrate taxa will be emphasized.
BIOL 312. Invertebrate Zoology (4-3-4)
Corequisite: BIOL 312L.
Spring.
A survey of invertebrate biology emphasizing morphology and evolutionary relationships, and including taxonomy, physiology, and behavior.
BIOL 440. Herpetology (4-3-4)
Corequisite: BIOL 440L.
Spring, odd years.
The study of the reptiles and amphibians. Evolutionary history, taxonomy, and ecology will be emphasized.
He ignores that, but claims it's also taught at William and Mary.
When he is shown the courses and called on that lie Bat's hero replies:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
BIOL 114. Topics in Evolution and Diversity (3-3-0) INW
Fal and Spring.
Through topics in evolution and diversity, this Area of Inquiry course will examine the process of science, history of science, and how science affects contemporary thought and society.
BIOL 115. Topics in Ecology and the Environment (3-3-0)
BIOL 215. Biological Evolution (3-3-0)
Prerequisite: BIOL 107/109L or 151/151L.
Spring.
Principles of biological evolution: review of genetics, detailed discussion of population genetics, natural selection, adaptation, isolating mechanisms, speciation, and phylogenetic inference.
BIOL 320. Natural History of the Vertebrates (4-3-4)
Corequisite: BIOL 320L.
Fall, odd years.
A survey of the living and extinct taxa of vertebrates. Evolutionary relationships, morphology, physiology, ecology, and behavior of the major living vertebrate taxa will be emphasized.
BIOL 312. Invertebrate Zoology (4-3-4)
Corequisite: BIOL 312L.
Spring.
A survey of invertebrate biology emphasizing morphology and evolutionary relationships, and including taxonomy, physiology, and behavior.
BIOL 440. Herpetology (4-3-4)
Corequisite: BIOL 440L.
Spring, odd years.
The study of the reptiles and amphibians. Evolutionary history, taxonomy, and ecology will be emphasized.
|
He ignores that, but claims it's also taught at William and Mary.
When he is shown the courses and called on that lie Bat's hero replies:
I work at a Food Lion at night right by the college of William & Mary, and uh, while there may not be a specific class taught on Intelligent Design, it is still, as I found out from about 4-5 students that I ran into tonight, taught in some Biology courses! So guess what? William & Mary ALSO teaches Intelligent Design. This makes it Science...sorry to bust your bubble there.
"I work NIGHTS AT FOOD LION right by the college of William & Mary."
COMIC GOLD.
Arthur
MisterBelfry
3rd May 2010 - 11:55 AM
QUOTE
Going to that thread one finds no support at all for that assertion:
I think the fun started later with greater participation from poster JonF.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/printthre...74&pp=60&page=3This is from page 2:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Going to that thread one finds no support at all for that assertion:
|
I think the fun started later with greater participation from poster JonF.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/printthre...74&pp=60&page=3This is from page 2:
Had the mods kept my post up, you would've seen turmoil in Texas, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee just to name 5. The president of Cornell mentions that there are 20. I do not have time to find my sources on those at the moment, and am not even within access of the sources, since I'm at work.
This is 2006August 31 in the AM. They go on debating the history of science as a science course or not. In effect, YeshuaMarine was saying _Teach the Controversy_ and evidently they were\are.
Enough of that for this thread.
Somewhere near the current end of Showtopic= 27191 I mentioned Sean Carroll.
Since then and most recently, I saw another review of his book.
QUOTE (David Lindley+)
Carroll is an affable and enthusiastic guide, but I suspect many readers will need to take frequent time-outs to let their minds unboggle.
Wilson Quarterly Spring 2010
David Lindley has a three year old book out about the soul of science. Stay tuned.
If closed timelike curves don't prove profitable, we will have baby universes to support our imaginations.
MrB.
adoucette
3rd May 2010 - 12:49 PM
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+May 3 2010, 06:55 AM)
I think the fun started later with greater participation from poster JonF.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/printthre...74&pp=60&page=3 JonF was CLEARLY not supporting YeshuaMarine's side of that argument.
As JonF pointed out ID was not in the normal Biology courses, which teach Evolution and NOT ID.
The ONLY place it comes up, is where it belongs, when you study the HISTORY of Biology.
QUOTE
"Seminar in the History of Biology" and "This seminar addresses, in historical perspective, controversies about the cultural implications of evolutionary biology. Discussions focus upon questions about gods, free will, foundations for ethics, meaning in life, and life after death. Readings range from Charles Darwin to the present. Discussion is the class format."
If that's what you mean by "teach the controversy", then of course I support doing so in a History of Biology class along with things like Spontaneous Generation, the Piltdown man and Lamark's theories.
Arthur
adoucette
3rd May 2010 - 03:32 PM
QUOTE (nopEda+May 2 2010, 03:59 PM)
I predicted that some people would believe that, though this is the first time I've seen evidence of it. Really to me is seems like it should be the most common belief for reasons that seem obvious to me, but I must be "wrong" because it doesn't appear to be very common at all...at least not in this forum.
More lies.
No one that I know of, besides you, has ever disputed that the SUM of the speeds of TWO objects can be greater than c.
AFAIK all we have ever said, is that the speed of any ONE object is limited to c.
Arthur
buttershug
3rd May 2010 - 03:56 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+May 3 2010, 03:32 PM)
More lies.
No one that I know of, besides you, has ever disputed that the SUM of the speeds of TWO objects can be greater than c.
AFAIK all we have ever said, is that the speed of any ONE object is limited to c.
Arthur
BUT that is only true from the perpective of a third object. Unless you can have an observer that is not an object.
The sum of the two speeds of two objects would not be able to be summed to greater than light speed in a universe with only those two objects.
Mainly because there would only be one speed.
adoucette
3rd May 2010 - 04:09 PM
QUOTE (buttershug+May 3 2010, 10:56 AM)
BUT that is only true from the perpective of a third object. Unless you can have an observer that is not an object.
True
QUOTE
The sum of the two speeds of two objects would not be able to be summed to greater than light speed in a universe with only those two objects.
Mainly because there would only be one speed.
False.
Two photons can move apart at the sum of speeds equal to 2c.
Since we know that light speed is constant, we can deduce that the speed of two photons moving 180 degrees away from each other have a combined speed of 2c.
Which is why this is true:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The sum of the two speeds of two objects would not be able to be summed to greater than light speed in a universe with only those two objects.
Mainly because there would only be one speed. |
False.
Two photons can move apart at the sum of speeds equal to 2c.
Since we know that light speed is constant, we can deduce that the speed of two photons moving 180 degrees away from each other have a combined speed of 2c.
Which is why this is true:
the sum and difference of the speed of light and the speed of some other object, both with respect to a single inertial coordinate system, which can be as great as 2c according to special relativity
buttershug
3rd May 2010 - 04:23 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+May 3 2010, 04:09 PM)
Since we know that light speed is constant, we can deduce that the speed of two photons moving 180 degrees away from each other have a combined speed of 2c.
What is that "loop" they are talking about?
Something other than a photon?
As in a third object?
And your "deduction" is precisely exactly what Nopeda is saying.
But he then carries it to any two objects, including space ships traveling at .75 c 180 degrees apart from each other.
adoucette
3rd May 2010 - 04:39 PM
QUOTE (buttershug+May 3 2010, 11:23 AM)
What is that "loop" they are talking about?
Something other than a photon?
As in a third object?
And your "deduction" is precisely exactly what Nopeda is saying.
But he then carries it to any two objects, including space ships traveling at .75 c 180 degrees apart from each other.
Nope.
Notice the wording:
QUOTE
the sum and difference of the speed of light and the speed of some other object, both with respect to a single inertial coordinate system, which can be as great as 2c according to special relativity
There is no third object mentioned.
Alternatively I can station two mirrors 1/2 light second away from a point source.
I can then emit light from the point source and I can detect when the light arrives back at the originating location exactly 1 second later, from both mirrors.
I can then calculate that the photons traveled the combined distance of 2 light seconds in a total elapsed time of 1 second, hence the sum of the speeds was 2c.
Which is totally logical, since each was moving at c.
Arthur
buttershug
3rd May 2010 - 04:55 PM
First that is special relativity.
Which means it requires special conditions.
Namely a "a single inertial co-ordinate system".
Is there one? Or is it just a convient construct?
And two mirrors, one point light source and YOU are four objects. (and a photon brings it to five)
And the fact that is relative to YOU makes it not relavent to what I was saying.
Basically as far as YOU are concerned it traveled at 2c.
You can use the exact same logic for two space ships and show that relativity is wrong. BUT it isn't. Therefore your example is flawed. (because you are doing hte measuring, which means you must exist when I said a universe with only two photons.)
And it is Nopeda's logic.
adoucette
3rd May 2010 - 05:18 PM
QUOTE (buttershug+May 3 2010, 11:55 AM)
And it is Nopeda's logic.
No, it is not.
I suggest you read this:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htmI take it that a single inertial coordinate system is simply one where all objects at rest remain at rest and all moving objects continue to do so unless acted on by other forces, i.e. a non-accelerating frame of reference.
In this single inertial coordinate system there is no prohibition that the sum of the speed of two objects being greater than c.
QUOTE
the sum and difference of the speed of light and the speed of some other object, both with respect to a single inertial coordinate system, which can be as great as 2c according to special relativity
That is NOT the same as saying what happens when an observer on one of the objects measures the speed of another object, in this case, even if the two observers are moving towards each other at c, they will still not measure the speed of the other object as greater than c.
I on the other hand, sitting on an object in between these two observers, both who are approaching me at c, can determine that each of them is approching me at c and I can thus deduce that the sum of their speeds as being 2c, but again, I will not measure either as going faster than c.
And once again, all is right with the world.
As to your special condition:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| the sum and difference of the speed of light and the speed of some other object, both with respect to a single inertial coordinate system, which can be as great as 2c according to special relativity |
That is NOT the same as saying what happens when an observer on one of the objects measures the speed of another object, in this case, even if the two observers are moving towards each other at c, they will still not measure the speed of the other object as greater than c.
I on the other hand, sitting on an object in between these two observers, both who are approaching me at c, can determine that each of them is approching me at c and I can thus deduce that the sum of their speeds as being 2c, but again, I will not measure either as going faster than c.
And once again, all is right with the world.
As to your special condition: The sum of the two speeds of two objects would not be able to be summed to greater than light speed in a universe with only those two objects.
Maybe I don't appreciate the significance of your statement, but then again I know of no aspect of relativity that relates to a universe composed of only two objects.
Arthur
nopEda
3rd May 2010 - 07:50 PM
QUOTE (buttershug+May 3 2010, 04:23 PM)
your "deduction" is precisely exactly what Nopeda is saying.
But he then carries it to any two objects, including space ships traveling at .75 c 180 degrees apart from each other.
I believe it's different between all objects depending on their velocity relative to each other. In contrast to that other people have been insisting it's the same for all objects regardless of their velocity relative to each other.
AlexG
3rd May 2010 - 07:54 PM
QUOTE
I believe it's different between all objects depending on their velocity relative to each other.
You believe wrong.
Nothing unusual there.
nopEda
3rd May 2010 - 08:03 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+May 3 2010, 03:32 PM)
No one that I know of, besides you, has ever disputed that the SUM of the speeds of TWO objects can be greater than c.
In contrast to that people have been telling me that the entire time. I'm not suprised that you turned out to be ashamed of it, but they've been doing it consistently none the less. Some people have insisted that light encounters all objects in the universe at the same velocity. You can't have it both ways, though it wouldn't be a surprise if you can't comprehend that either.
QUOTE (adoucette+May 3 2010, 03:32 PM)
AFAIK all we have ever said, is that the speed of any ONE object is limited to c.
The fact that you can't say relative to what still means that so far you haven't yet said anything really...not even how you can tell whether something is "traveling at c" or "at rest". All this time and you who try to support the restriction STILL!!!!!!!!!! have provided absolutely nothing. You haven't provided anything to even take into consideration. Could you honestly be unaware of that???
nopEda
3rd May 2010 - 08:05 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+May 3 2010, 04:39 PM)
each was moving at c.
Relative to what, do you have any idea?
AlexG
3rd May 2010 - 08:08 PM
QUOTE (nopEda+May 3 2010, 03:05 PM)
Relative to what, do you have any idea?
Relative to anything and everything.
idiot
buttershug
3rd May 2010 - 08:10 PM
QUOTE (nopEda+May 3 2010, 08:03 PM)
In contrast to that people have been telling me that the entire time. I'm not suprised that you turned out to be ashamed of it, but they've been doing it consistently none the less. Some people have insisted that light encounters all objects in the universe at the same velocity. You can't have it both ways, though it wouldn't be a surprise if you can't comprehend that either.
The fact that you can't say relative to what still means that so far you haven't yet said anything really...not even how you can tell whether something is "traveling at c" or "at rest". All this time and you who try to support the restriction
STILL!!!!!!!!!! have provided absolutely nothing. You haven't provided anything to even take into consideration. Could you honestly be unaware of that???
Who said that there is a way to tell if something is at rest or traveling?
That is actually the whole point of relativity.
IF a spaceship is traveling towards Earth in a spiral pattern and shines a light on on spot it will hit at the speed of light. If there is a geosynchronous sattelite shining a light on a neighbouring site it will also hit at the speed of light.
IF they both use the same kind of laser then the frequencies will be different but not the speed.
That is reality. That is how the Universe works, with or without your permission and understanding.
adoucette
3rd May 2010 - 08:39 PM
QUOTE (nopEda+May 3 2010, 03:05 PM)
Relative to what, do you have any idea?
Yes, relative to where you started measuring it's speed.
The speed of an object is simply the distance traveled between two fixed points divided by time it takes to go that distance.
You seem to think that if you can run the 50 yard dash in 10 seconds and then get someone to move the starting blocks back by 50 yards while you are running, that you can magically increase your speed.
But that doesn't change your speed at all.
You are still running 50 yards in 10 seconds, not 100 yards in 10 seconds.
Arthur
buttershug
3rd May 2010 - 09:21 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+May 3 2010, 08:39 PM)
Yes, relative to where you started measuring it's speed.
The speed of an object is simply the distance traveled between two fixed points divided by time it takes to go that distance.
You seem to think that if you can run the 50 yard dash in 10 seconds and then get someone to move the starting blocks back by 50 yards while you are running, that you can magically increase your speed.
But that doesn't change your speed at all.
You are still running 50 yards in 10 seconds, not 100 yards in 10 seconds.
Arthur
I get the feeling he is saying that your speed does not change even in cases where relativity says that it does.
With the space station and two spaceships traveling 180 degrees away from each other, their speed is different for the space station than for the ships compared to each other.
I get the feeling that Nopeda says it doesn't matter who does the measuring.
It's more like he thinks if two space ships are traveling away opposite from each other from a starting block at .75 c they will see the other traveling away at 1.5 c.
He thinks you can add up the speeds.
adoucette
3rd May 2010 - 09:35 PM
QUOTE (buttershug+May 3 2010, 04:21 PM)
I get the feeling he is saying that your speed does not change even in cases where relativity says that it does.
With the space station and two spaceships traveling 180 degrees away from each other, their speed is different for the space station than for the ships compared to each other.
I get the feeling that Nopeda says it doesn't matter who does the measuring.
It's more like he thinks if two space ships are traveling away opposite from each other from a starting block at .75 c they will see the other traveling away at 1.5 c.
He thinks you can add up the speeds.
I'm not at all sure what he thinks, but since he doesn't appear to agree that the speed of light is a constant, there is no hope of getting agreement on more complex issues.
Arthur
MisterBelfry
4th May 2010 - 01:05 PM
QUOTE
QUOTE
"Seminar in the History of Biology" and "This seminar addresses, in historical perspective, controversies about the cultural implications of evolutionary biology. Discussions focus upon questions about gods, free will, foundations for ethics, meaning in life, and life after death. Readings range from Charles Darwin to the present. Discussion is the class format."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
QUOTE
"Seminar in the History of Biology" and "This seminar addresses, in historical perspective, controversies about the cultural implications of evolutionary biology. Discussions focus upon questions about gods, free will, foundations for ethics, meaning in life, and life after death. Readings range from Charles Darwin to the present. Discussion is the class format."
If that's what you mean by "teach the controversy", then of course I support doing so in a History of Biology class along with things like Spontaneous Generation, the Piltdown man and Lamark's theories.
Arthur
|
Yeah, I thought you would. It should be noted, Darwin's ideas are plural as well with something like 20% of his sentences surviving intact to the final sixth edition; if I am not mistaken. Natural selection(the once weak link) is the weak link(once again, history repeating itself) targeted by the Intelligent Design movement which isn't anything but an illusion to negotiate between the evolutionists and the creationists. One side is obviously{to the well educated} horribly WRONG!
I wasn't going to bring this up again(here in this thread)... but what you find next to the review mentioned in WQ above is the review of a book titled
Seeing the Light: Religious Colleges in Twenty-First-Century America by Samuel Schmuan.
QUOTE (reviewer Aaron Mesh+)
However, the secular academy is hardly less dogmatic. ..."their professors have never encouraged discussions of spiritual or religious matters, and never provide opportunities for discussing the meaning or purpose of life." Wherever you go to college, a mind is a difficult thing to free.I thought that was a neat co-ink-e-dink.
Another is what I downloaded in October 2004 and have now in an open window.
QUOTE
archived as
http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Vuyk_1.doc taken from
http://home.planet.nl/~vuyk0022/ on April 15, 2002 :
The outlines of a Theory of Everything,
with Cosmological and Philosophical implications.
How a Chiral Quantum Vacuum and "Big Bang-entanglement"
could lead to a causal reconciliation of Quantum Mechanics
and Relativity, Consciousness and Free Will.
By: Leo Vuyk . ...l Version 16
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
archived as http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Vuyk_1.doc
taken from http://home.planet.nl/~vuyk0022/ on April 15, 2002 :
The outlines of a Theory of Everything,
with Cosmological and Philosophical implications.
How a Chiral Quantum Vacuum and "Big Bang-entanglement"
could lead to a causal reconciliation of Quantum Mechanics
and Relativity, Consciousness and Free Will.
By: Leo Vuyk . ...l Version 16
|
As a result, the rotational Earth velocity around the sun relative to the solar reference frame should be measurable by future one-way velocity experiments of the GPS. (The so-called Sagnac effect -- which is originated by the Earth rotation itself -- is already converted in the GPS system)
As a consequence, this model is in MEASURABLE DISCORDANCE with Einstein?s Special Relativity which says that light will always travel at a constant rate, regardless of the frame of reference.
...
Consequently if this increase in reflection time is related to the evolutionary increase of complexity of cells, the goal of human evolution seems to be the creation of moral awareness, made by animate dual synchronized logic quantum computers with enough time for "reflection", like our dual synchronized brains. Thus: Descarte?s: "I think therefore I am" should change into: "I am a QM system, which is always non-local instantaneous EPR correlated, and in competition for Free Will with my opposite anti-I, living in a dual anti-mirror universe, therefore We are! We are dual co-authors of our common life".
John Bell?s interpretation
However, in this context the Quantum Vacuum and Special Relativity seem to be only compatible if we take the "John Bell (Lorentz ) interpretation" of Special Relativity for granted, which is less elegant and less simple (the Occam?s Razor criterion) than Einstein postulated. see: [1] . Secondly, I found that there is evidence of an historical misinterpretation...
Is that a clearing through these thickets, I see?
MrB.
Oh, just an illusion... I thought so!
[1] John s. Bell, "Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics" ch.9: called "How to teach Special Relativity" (1987).
While you guys carry on with that infamous postulate, I think I will check-out that chapter. I see that I do have it bookmarked.
buttershug
4th May 2010 - 01:56 PM
Pick any nutty idea and you can find papers on it.
I even have a book from 20 years ago on how to build a time traveling UFO and the author sounds serious about it. And things have gotten much worse with the internet.
Mr. B give us just one valid reason to believe in ID.
Just one.
Nobody has yet. All you have going for you is campfire stories and hearsay.
adoucette
4th May 2010 - 02:06 PM
Mr Bats spends a lot of time to say essentially nothing.
Arthur
nopEda
4th May 2010 - 06:38 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+May 3 2010, 08:39 PM)
Yes, relative to where you started measuring it's speed.
The speed of an object is simply the distance traveled between two fixed points divided by time it takes to go that distance.
You seem to think that if you can run the 50 yard dash in 10 seconds and then get someone to move the starting blocks back by 50 yards while you are running, that you can magically increase your speed.
It would increase my speed relative to the blocks even if you can't comprehend how or why, and there would be nothing magical about it.
QUOTE (adoucette+May 3 2010, 08:39 PM)
But that doesn't change your speed at all.
You are still running 50 yards in 10 seconds, not 100 yards in 10 seconds.
Relative to THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH. In space there is no surface of the universe to be relative to so you can't say things "are" moving at a certain velocity as people indulge in doing on the Earth. I will say I'm amazed that not a single one of you people is able to recognise the significance of the fact that there is no surface of the universe to compare everything to. None of you have even gotten to the starting line yet, from my pov.
buttershug
4th May 2010 - 07:03 PM
QUOTE (nopEda+May 4 2010, 06:38 PM)
It would increase my speed relative to the blocks even if you can't comprehend how or why, and there would be nothing magical about it.
Relative to THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH. In space there is no surface of the universe to be relative to so you can't say things "are" moving at a certain velocity as people indulge in doing on the Earth. I will say I'm amazed that not a single one of you people is able to recognise the significance of the fact that there is no surface of the universe to compare everything to. None of you have even gotten to the starting line yet, from my pov.
There is no floor to the Universe.
And every relative motion is limited to the speed of light.
If a space ship is moving away from a space station at 0.75c and another one is going 180 degrees the other way at 0.75c, they each see the space station departing at 0.75c. And they see the other ship moving away from them at less than c.
And they all see all radio signals from the other two as arriving at c. The frequencies will be shifted but the speed will be c.
And how fast the space station sees them moving away from each other is trivial at best.
nopEda
4th May 2010 - 07:10 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+May 3 2010, 09:35 PM)
I'm not at all sure what he thinks, but since he doesn't appear to agree that the speed of light is a constant, there is no hope of getting agreement on more complex issues.
Arthur
In case you haven't noticed yet, so far no one has said constant relative to what. If you could say to the surface of the universe that would give us something, but you can't. If you could say relative to anything in particular at all then we would at least have that to go on and from there consider whether it's true or not, but no, no one has been able to do even that much. Saying relative to "everything" is just a copout that has no meaning. So, the reason I can't accept what you people tell me as being a constant is because you haven't been able to explain how it could be one. But I know what it means to me:
That light is always emitted at the same velocity relative to the point it was emitted from, regardless of that point's velocity relative to anything else.
nopEda
4th May 2010 - 07:15 PM
QUOTE (AlexG+May 3 2010, 08:08 PM)
Relative to anything and everything.
buttershug
4th May 2010 - 07:21 PM
QUOTE (nopEda+May 4 2010, 07:10 PM)
In case you haven't noticed yet, so far no one has said constant relative to what. If you could say to the surface of the universe that would give us something, but you can't. If you could say relative to anything in particular at all then we would at least have that to go on and from there consider whether it's true or not, but no, no one has been able to do even that much. Saying relative to "everything" is just a copout that has no meaning. So, the reason I can't accept what you people tell me as being a constant is because you haven't been able to explain how it could be one. But I know what it means to me:
That light is always emitted at the same velocity relative to the point it was emitted from, regardless of that point's velocity relative to anything else.
I think it would be better to say relative to "anything".
But what it really means is;
That light is always emitted at the same velocity relative to the point it was emitted from, regardless of that point's velocity relative to anything else.
AlexG
5th May 2010 - 12:53 AM
As I've said elsewhere, noFeet is a dishonest, lying troll. There's no point in trying to teach him anything, since he's already decided to believe nothing he's told or shown.
AlexG
5th May 2010 - 12:56 AM
QUOTE (buttershug+May 4 2010, 02:21 PM)
That light is always emitted at the same velocity relative to the point it was emitted from, regardless of that point's velocity relative to anything else.
And it is always received at the same velocity, regardless of the relative motion of the emitter and receiver.
buttershug
5th May 2010 - 10:24 AM
QUOTE (AlexG+May 5 2010, 12:56 AM)
And it is always received at the same velocity, regardless of the relative motion of the emitter and receiver.
AND we are talking observation, not theory.
nopEda
5th May 2010 - 07:57 PM
QUOTE (buttershug+May 4 2010, 07:21 PM)
I think it would be better to say relative to "anything".
But what it really means is;
That light is always emitted at the same velocity relative to the point it was emitted from, regardless of that point's velocity relative to anything else.
That's what I believe, but I do not believe that means it's the same velocity relative to everything else. If it were, then it would NOT be constant but instead light would have to alter its velocity specifically for every object it encounters in the universe.
nopEda
5th May 2010 - 07:59 PM
QUOTE (AlexG+May 5 2010, 12:56 AM)
it is always received at the same velocity, regardless of the relative motion of the emitter and receiver.
nopEda
5th May 2010 - 08:03 PM
QUOTE (buttershug+May 5 2010, 10:24 AM)
we are talking observation, not theory.
At how high a percentage of light speed have humans become able to travel? Relative to what?
AlexG
5th May 2010 - 08:07 PM
QUOTE (nopEda+May 5 2010, 03:03 PM)
At how high a percentage of light speed have humans become able to travel? Relative to what?
Idiot.
You don't have to reach light speed to measure light speed.
(why am I arguing with this fool?)
adoucette
5th May 2010 - 08:15 PM
QUOTE (nopEda+May 4 2010, 02:10 PM)
In case you haven't noticed yet, so far no one has said constant relative to what.
Probably one of the DUMBEST statements I've ever seen.
nopEda, you are an ignorant fool who treats stupidity as a virtue.
Arthur
Goofus A Gallant
5th May 2010 - 08:20 PM
QUOTE (nopEda+May 5 2010, 03:03 PM)
At how high a percentage of light speed have humans become able to travel? Relative to what?
Read some Einstein. (Albert, that is - not the menu at the bagel place.)
buttershug
5th May 2010 - 08:28 PM
QUOTE (nopEda+May 5 2010, 08:03 PM)
At how high a percentage of light speed have humans become able to travel? Relative to what?
You don't have to travel at near light speed to measure light speed.
There is a tricky way to do it.
Well two different methods.
adoucette
5th May 2010 - 08:30 PM
Nor do you need to travel near the speed of light to measure relativistic affects.
Arthur
Grumpy
5th May 2010 - 08:49 PM
dopEduh
QUOTE
That's what I believe, but I do not believe that means it's the same velocity relative to everything else. If it were, then it would NOT be constant but instead light would have to alter its velocity specifically for every object it encounters in the universe.
It isn't LIGHT that changes, it is TIME. This is called TIME DILATION. Time dilates EXACTLY enough that all observers(whatever their speed)measure lightspeed(distance divided by TIME)EXACTLY the same, no matter what. Lightspeed is the same for all observers. PERIOD! Lightspeed is the same in relation to everything in the Universe. PERIOD!
These are the FACTS, the Universe could not care less what you believe.
Now go forth and be stupid no more.
Grumpy
nopEda
6th May 2010 - 04:10 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 5 2010, 08:49 PM)
dopEduh
It isn't LIGHT that changes, it is TIME. This is called TIME DILATION. Time dilates EXACTLY enough that all observers(whatever their speed)measure lightspeed(distance divided by TIME)EXACTLY the same, no matter what. Lightspeed is the same for all observers. PERIOD! Lightspeed is the same in relation to everything in the Universe. PERIOD!
These are the FACTS, the Universe could not care less what you believe.
Now go forth and be stupid no more.
Grumpy
For one thing I thought we agreed time doesn't exist as a physical thing that causes changes to anything else. That it only exists as a concept that measures durations similar to how yards and meters measure distances. That's what I believe whether you do or not. If that's the case, then time never causes any change to anything but in contrast "time is changed" for things, which imo probably actually means that the rate of activity is altered at the molecular or atomic (or subatomic...) level, changing the rate at which events take place.
For another what are you saying causes the time dilation? If you're going to say it has something to do with velocity you not only have to say relative to what, but also what the significance is in its relation TO the what. If you can't explain one or the other you can't tell the whole story. If you can't explain either...well...
For another, why does whatever it is only influence velocity but not frequency. Why doesn't time (or whatever) slow down the frequency as well as velocity, so that nothing is blue shifted? Why doesn't ...whatever... speed up the frequency as well as velocity, so that nothing is red shifted?
Goofus A Gallant
6th May 2010 - 04:21 PM
QUOTE (nopEda+May 6 2010, 11:10 AM)
For one thing I thought we agreed time doesn't exist as a physical thing that causes changes to anything else. That it only exists as a concept that measures durations similar to how yards and meters measure distances. That's what I believe whether you do or not. If that's the case, then time never causes any change to anything but in contrast "time is changed" for things, which imo probably actually means that the rate of activity is altered at the molecular or atomic (or subatomic...) level, changing the rate at which events take place.
For another what are you saying causes the time dilation? If you're going to say it has something to do with velocity you not only have to say relative to what, but also what the significance is in its relation TO the what. If you can't explain one or the other you can't tell the whole story. If you can't explain either...well...
For another, why does whatever it is only influence velocity but not frequency. Why doesn't time (or whatever) slow down the frequency as well as velocity, so that nothing is blue shifted? Why doesn't ...whatever... speed up the frequency as well as velocity, so that nothing is red shifted?
This one is a difficult example...
I'm unsure if it is a troll or actual stupdity. (S)he can't claim ignorance as it has been explained numerous times. There must also be a bookstore or a library within reasonable distance so that (s)he could acquire a book on the subject.
Troll OR stupid? You decide.
nopEda
6th May 2010 - 04:26 PM
QUOTE (buttershug+May 5 2010, 08:28 PM)
You don't have to travel at near light speed to measure light speed.
There is a tricky way to do it.
Well two different methods.
I remember reading something about a strobe idea, but forget exactly how it went.
Even so, until we get in the position that humans are traveling close to light speed relative to this planet I don't believe we'll be in any position to make some of the claims that are being made. Red and blue shifting are very significant to me.
_________________________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_shift. . .
While the terms "redshifting" and "blueshifting" imply significantly redder or bluer light, only the most distant galaxies and those moving at speeds far above average emit light that arrives with perceptible red or blue tinges. For the most part, shifting is not a visible phenomenon.
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_shiftŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
So far no one has gone into much detail about that, but some have simply said it's only the frequency and not the velocity that is altered. I still believe the frequency is altered because the velocity is altered.
nopEda
6th May 2010 - 04:33 PM
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+May 6 2010, 04:21 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
why does whatever it is only influence velocity but not frequency. Why doesn't time (or whatever) slow down the frequency as well as velocity, so that nothing is blue shifted? Why doesn't ...whatever... speed up the frequency as well as velocity, so that nothing is red shifted?
This one is a difficult example...
You certainly behave as one who is clueless, no doubt.
Granouille
6th May 2010 - 11:13 PM
No doubt you get your clues from God Himself? Just like newguy?
You damned fool.
Grumpy
7th May 2010 - 01:00 AM
dopEduh
QUOTE
For one thing I thought we agreed time doesn't exist as a physical thing that causes changes to anything else.
No, you have said nothing that I have agreed with, you are always wrong. Time is a dimension just like length, breadth and depth(x y and z axis). It takes all four before any event can happen,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For one thing I thought we agreed time doesn't exist as a physical thing that causes changes to anything else. |
No, you have said nothing that I have agreed with, you are always wrong. Time is a dimension just like length, breadth and depth(x y and z axis). It takes all four before any event can happen,
That it only exists as a concept that measures durations similar to how yards and meters measure distances.
The
units of time are human inventions that describe a real thing, just like an inch is a human invention to describe length(which is also a real thing). Time is an intregal part what the Universe is, to say time(or distance, for that matter)does not exist is nothing but pure idiocy.
QUOTE
That's what I believe whether you do or not.
Yes, we know you are an idiot.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That's what I believe whether you do or not. |
Yes, we know you are an idiot.
If that's the case, then time never causes any change to anything but in contrast "time is changed" for things, which imo probably actually means that the rate of activity is altered at the molecular or atomic (or subatomic...) level, changing the rate at which events take place.
It is changed at the Universe's level, the level of strings(maybe) and forces and dimensions(11 of them at last count). Gravity, mass, and spacetime are intricatly interwoven with the speed of light determining their interactions. If you increase your speed relative to anything time will slow down exactly enough that the speed of light is constant for you and for the point you are measuring your speed against. This is true for EVERY point in the Universe.
The speed of light also determines the relationship of mass and energy(E=MC^2), mass times the speed of light squared=the amount of energy contained within that mass.
QUOTE
For another what are you saying causes the time dilation?
Time changes for speed and for gravity. Near lightspeed time flows very slowly, the same thing happens in a gravity field where the escape velocity is near lightspeed. Dilation, in smaller amounts happens in Earth's gravity field, or at lower velocities. This is why clocks run slower on Earth than in space and the GPS satellites need to compensate for that as well as their orbital velocity.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For another what are you saying causes the time dilation? |
Time changes for speed and for gravity. Near lightspeed time flows very slowly, the same thing happens in a gravity field where the escape velocity is near lightspeed. Dilation, in smaller amounts happens in Earth's gravity field, or at lower velocities. This is why clocks run slower on Earth than in space and the GPS satellites need to compensate for that as well as their orbital velocity.
If you're going to say it has something to do with velocity you not only have to say relative to what, but also what the significance is in its relation TO the what. If you can't explain one or the other you can't tell the whole story. If you can't explain either...well...
I just told you the straight skinny(again). If you are too stupid and crap-headed to understand, that's your problem.
QUOTE
For another, why does whatever it is only influence velocity but not frequency. Why doesn't time (or whatever) slow down the frequency as well as velocity, so that nothing is blue shifted? Why doesn't ...whatever... speed up the frequency as well as velocity, so that nothing is red shifted?
The speed of light is the constant of the Universe, for all points of the Universe and in relation to all points that velocity is measured against, PERIOD. Gravity(mass), time, length(in the direction of travel or the direction of gravity), even energy contained within a moving mass all change, lightspeed does not.
Doppler effects have to do with the energy levels of light. If the emitting source is travelling away from the observer it's emission lines will shift toward the red(lose energy), the amount of shift being directly porportional to the speed of that emitter in relation to the observer. Of course an observer on that emitter would see exactly the same red shift on the part of light emitted by the first observer(IE both observers see the same red shift). Interesting point, we see very few blue shifts. Due to the expansion of space almost everything else in the Universe is travellig away from us, the only exceptions are stars in our Galaxy and Galaxies in our immediate neighborhood like Andromeda.
dopE, I am not posting this for your benefit, I don't think you will "get it", ever. But others must know the real thing if they happen to read your idiocy, so I will continue to try to teach physics(as I did for over thirty years)in the hope someone who wants to learn will have that opportunity. Everything in this post is what we know about the Universe to the best of my knowledge.
Grumpy
MisterBelfry
7th May 2010 - 04:20 PM
UNDER Special Relativity
QUOTE (Grumpy+)
Time is an intregal part what the Universe is, to say time(or distance, for that matter)does not exist is nothing but pure idiocy.
QUOTE (J.S. Bell+)
It is not possible in a classical model to reproduce the empirical stability of such matter.QUOTE
If you increase your speed relative to anything time will slow down exactly enough that the speed of light is constant for you and for the point you are measuring your speed against. This is true for EVERY point in the Universe.
Yeah, I don't like conspiracies.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
If you increase your speed relative to anything time will slow down exactly enough that the speed of light is constant for you and for the point you are measuring your speed against. This is true for EVERY point in the Universe. |
Yeah, I don't like conspiracies.
The speed of light also determines the relationship of mass and energy(E=MC^2), mass times the speed of light squared=the amount of energy contained within that mass.
Demonstrably stupid! We don't care if Iran has all the chromium in the world.
MrB.
Well, maybe we would. But that is not the current problem in geopolitics. Stability is under forces we know not. Oh, we have given them names; however, the full understanding rooks us still.
Grumpy
7th May 2010 - 04:57 PM
Can anyone translate Batspeak for me, all I see is incoherence.
Grumpy
adoucette
7th May 2010 - 05:05 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 7 2010, 11:57 AM)
Can anyone translate Batspeak for me, all I see is incoherence.
Grumpy
No idea about the first part, more obtuse than normal for Mr Bats.
But I think at the end he's trying to say that E=MC^2 only applies to radioactive materials, hence the "don't care that Iran has Chromium", comment.
He then seems to imply that we don't understand why some elements are stable (meaning not radioactive) and some are.
Arthur
MisterBelfry
7th May 2010 - 06:41 PM
QUOTE (May04+)
Is that a clearing through these thickets, I see?
MrB.
Oh, just an illusion... I thought so!
[1] John S. Bell, "Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics" ch.9: called "How to teach Special Relativity" (1987).
A simple diagram illustrates:
-------------------------------B
A
-------------------------------C
Say there is just enough thread between B & C. Ships B & C have the same acceleration programme and do engage the engines together. What do the shipmates{assuming the same species} at A see?
Do they see the Fitzgerald contraction and rightly conclude that the thread breaks?
QUOTE (John Bell+)
This old problem came up for discussion once in the CERN canteen. A distinguished experimental physicist refused to accept that the thread would break, and regarded my assertion, that indeed it would, as a personal misinterpretation of special relativity. We decided to appeal to the CERN Theory Division for arbitration, and made a (not very systematic) canvas of opinion in it. There emerged a clear consensus that the thread would not break!
QUOTE (April19+)
Ergo, no revolution measured, Earth's rotation not necessary!
MrB.
QUOTE (John Bell+)
This completes the introducton to what has come to be called 'the special theory of relativity'. It arose from experimental failure to detect any change, in the apparent laws of physics in terrestrial laboratories, with the slowly changing orbital velocity of the earth. Of particular importance was the Michelson-Morley experiment, which attempted to find some difference in the apparent velocity of light in diffferent directions.
QUOTE (John Bell+)
The approach of Einstein differs from that of Lorentz in two major ways. There is a difference of philosophy, and a difference of style.
The difference of philosophy is this. Since it is experimentally impossible to say which of two uniformly moving systems is really at rest, Einstein declares the notions "really resting" and "really moving" as meaningless. For him only the relative motion of two or more uniformly moving objects is real. Lorentz, on the other hand, preferred the view that there is indeed a state of real rest, defined by the aether, even though the laws of physics conspire to prevent us identifying it experimentally. The facts of physics do not oblige us to accept one philosophy rather than the other. And we need not accept Lorentz's philosophy to accept a Lorentz pedagogy. Its special merit is to drive home the lesson that the laws of physics in any one reference frame account for all physical phenomena, including the observations of moving observers. And it is often simpler to work in a single frame, rather than to hurry after each moving object in turn.
The difference of style is that instead of inferring the experience of moving observers from known and conjectured laws of physics, Einstein starts from the hypothesis that the laws will look the same to all observers in uniform motion. This permits a very concise and elegant formulation of the theory, as often happens when one big assumption can be made to cover several less big ones. There is no intention here to make any reservation whatever about the power and precision of Einstein's approach. But in my opinion there is also something to be said for taking students along the road made by Fitzgerald, Larmor, Lorentz, and Poincare. The longer road sometimes gives more familiarity with the country.
Larmor[1900] is time dilation.
QUOTE (John Bell+)
Can we conclude then that an arbitrary system, set in motion, will show precisely the Fitzgerald and Larmor effects? Not quite.
Yes, we have the Sagnac effect as technology on the roads today. Wave bye-bye to STR, dears.
MrB.
I pasted the green and added the bold(italicized in the original).
http://www.physicsforums.com/printthread.php?t=263&pp=40
adoucette
7th May 2010 - 07:42 PM
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+May 7 2010, 01:41 PM)
Wave bye-bye to STR, dears.
MrB.
With apologies to Mark Twain:
"The reports of SR's death are greatly exaggerated"
Arthur
AlexG
7th May 2010 - 07:43 PM
Incoherent snippets and cut and paste.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here youll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.
For serious link see below
That was so f'ed up he's bound to understand it! 