A Scientist Visits Kentucky's Creation Museum

[cnm]

Boy do I see what IceWeasel meant.

 

[FA_Q2]

Boy do I see what IceWeasel meant.

lol.

 

[Steven_R]

If you believe in an unproven theory you have no high ground in claiming a secular cause as "science" while the theist is surrendering the ability to think. It's arrogant and a misuse of the word science.

Again, no scientific theory is ever proven. A scientific theory is simply the best available knowledge/explanation until better knowledge/explanations come along. You've been told this, how come you can't accept it?

in order to a theory a hypothesis needs SOME supporting evidence......it needs to be successfully tested at some point or it never becomes a theory.......why do you pretend this isn't true?......

You're right that a theory must be successful to remain a theory. It is rigorously tested. But a scientific theory can never be proved to be 100% correct because we don't know what we don't know. Einstein's Theory of Relativity posits that nothing can go faster than the speed light. And so far that seems to be true, but how do we know that is always the case?

Just to be pedantic, Einstien's equation says nothing can accelerate up to or past the speed of light. It says nothing about superluminal phenomena that is naturally faster than light, should they exist.

 

[FA_Q2]

If you believe in an unproven theory you have no high ground in claiming a secular cause as "science" while the theist is surrendering the ability to think. It's arrogant and a misuse of the word science.

Again, no scientific theory is ever proven. A scientific theory is simply the best available knowledge/explanation until better knowledge/explanations come along. You've been told this, how come you can't accept it?

in order to a theory a hypothesis needs SOME supporting evidence......it needs to be successfully tested at some point or it never becomes a theory.......why do you pretend this isn't true?......

You're right that a theory must be successful to remain a theory. It is rigorously tested. But a scientific theory can never be proved to be 100% correct because we don't know what we don't know. Einstein's Theory of Relativity posits that nothing can go faster than the speed light. And so far that seems to be true, but how do we know that is always the case?

Just to be pedantic, Einstien's equation says nothing can accelerate up to or past the speed of light. It says nothing about superluminal phenomena that is naturally faster than light, should they exist.

I think it is worth noting that we have already observed phenomena that appears to travel faster than light:
Physicists set new record for quantum teleportation with matter qubits
We have known about quantum entanglement for awhile but only recently we have been able to start using it to transmit information faster than light. Really interesting stuff.

 

[Iceweasel]

So if my motorcycle travels at the speed of light and I turn on the headlight, what happens?

 

[FA_Q2]

So if my motorcycle travels at the speed of light and I turn on the headlight, what happens?

That depends. Are you traveling the speed of light or near it? If you are traveling at the speed of light then time ceases to move forward so you would never turn the light on. Distances would also be non-existent - as time does not pass for you you would be able to traverse the entire universe instantly from your perspective (or more accurately there wouldn't be anywhere to travel to as distances would be shortened to 0)

 

[PostmodernProph]

So if my motorcycle travels at the speed of light and I turn on the headlight, what happens?

you surpass your expectations.....

 

[Iceweasel]

I understood time would stop for you, not that you're frozen in time. So you would be in a timeless, or eternal state. But from a separate vantage point light travels at 186,000 mps.

 

[Iceweasel]

So if my motorcycle travels at the speed of light and I turn on the headlight, what happens?

you surpass your expectations.....

Even if I hit the high beams?

 

[PostmodernProph]

logically you would both be wrong....light is not time, therefore if moving faster than light you would not be separate from time, you would be separate from light.....

you would also likely be dead, as the first bug you got in your teeth on your motorcycle at 186k mps would snap your neck..........

 

[FA_Q2]

I understood time would stop for you, not that you're frozen in time. So you would be in a timeless, or eternal state. But from a separate vantage point light travels at 186,000 mps.

I dont understand what you are getting at.

light travels at 'c' regardless of the vantage point it is viewed on. If you flip on your lights while traveling at .99c then you would see the light travel away from you at exactly c where an outside observer would see the light travel away from your motorcycle at .01c. Time is not the only thing that changes for you though and causes that warped perception that the light is traveling away from you at c - distance also changes. IOW, travel to a nearby solar system at near light speeds would literally make the distance traveled shorter (and you would look longer to an outside observer).

 

[FA_Q2]

logically you would both be wrong....light is not time, therefore if moving faster than light you would not be separate from time, you would be separate from light.....

you would also likely be dead, as the first bug you got in your teeth on your motorcycle at 186k mps would snap your neck..........

Not FASTER but near to light speed and no, you are incorrect. The passage of time is directly related to relative velocity. The closer you get to the speed of light, the slower time passes. At the speed of light, time ceases to exists entirely.

 

[Iceweasel]

light travels at 'c' regardless of the vantage point it is viewed on. If you flip on your lights while traveling at .99c then you would see the light travel away from you at exactly c where an outside observer would see the light travel away from your motorcycle at .01c. Time is not the only thing that changes for you though and causes that warped perception that the light is traveling away from you at c - distance also changes. IOW, travel to a nearby solar system at near light speeds would literally make the distance traveled shorter (and you would look longer to an outside observer).

But my bike can do 100% the speed of light so how can the headlight work if light take time to travel?

 

[PostmodernProph]

logically you would both be wrong....light is not time, therefore if moving faster than light you would not be separate from time, you would be separate from light.....

you would also likely be dead, as the first bug you got in your teeth on your motorcycle at 186k mps would snap your neck..........

Not FASTER but near to light speed and no, you are incorrect. The passage of time is directly related to relative velocity. The closer you get to the speed of light, the slower time passes. At the speed of light, time ceases to exists entirely.

ummm....no......if I exist and experience time and light, I may experience the light at point B, then move to point A and experience the light there.....if I move from point B to point A so quickly that the light I experienced at point B has not arrived with me, I still experience the the movement from B to A, the light which was at point B and the light which I find at point A......those three experiences are all separated by time......

 

[Steven_R]

MIT put out a game last year called A Slower Speed of Light that allows the player to experience relativistic effects at a normal walking pace.

A Slower Speed of Light MIT Game Lab

 

[Steven_R]

logically you would both be wrong....light is not time, therefore if moving faster than light you would not be separate from time, you would be separate from light.....

you would also likely be dead, as the first bug you got in your teeth on your motorcycle at 186k mps would snap your neck..........

Not FASTER but near to light speed and no, you are incorrect. The passage of time is directly related to relative velocity. The closer you get to the speed of light, the slower time passes. At the speed of light, time ceases to exists entirely.

ummm....no......if I exist and experience time and light, I may experience the light at point B, then move to point A and experience the light there.....if I move from point B to point A so quickly that the light I experienced at point B has not arrived with me, I still experience the the movement from B to A, the light which was at point B and the light which I find at point A......those three experiences are all separated by time......

Want to understand special relativity? Let me google that for you

How Special Relativity Works - HowStuffWorks

 

[FA_Q2]

light travels at 'c' regardless of the vantage point it is viewed on. If you flip on your lights while traveling at .99c then you would see the light travel away from you at exactly c where an outside observer would see the light travel away from your motorcycle at .01c. Time is not the only thing that changes for you though and causes that warped perception that the light is traveling away from you at c - distance also changes. IOW, travel to a nearby solar system at near light speeds would literally make the distance traveled shorter (and you would look longer to an outside observer).

But my bike can do 100% the speed of light so how can the headlight work if light take time to travel?

Your bike cannot go the speed of light unless Einstein is incorrect.

As you accelerate closer to the speed of light your mass increases. As your mass increases it takes more energy to accelerate your bike. Its like trying to get to 10 on the richter scale, you can always get a little closer but you are never going to get there.

 

[FA_Q2]

logically you would both be wrong....light is not time, therefore if moving faster than light you would not be separate from time, you would be separate from light.....

you would also likely be dead, as the first bug you got in your teeth on your motorcycle at 186k mps would snap your neck..........

Not FASTER but near to light speed and no, you are incorrect. The passage of time is directly related to relative velocity. The closer you get to the speed of light, the slower time passes. At the speed of light, time ceases to exists entirely.

ummm....no......if I exist and experience time and light, I may experience the light at point B, then move to point A and experience the light there.....if I move from point B to point A so quickly that the light I experienced at point B has not arrived with me, I still experience the the movement from B to A, the light which was at point B and the light which I find at point A......those three experiences are all separated by time......

No, you don't (though beating your own light there is impossible with our current understanding of physics).

Again, time is directly related to relative velocity. You experience time differently than someone that is in motion relative to each other. It gets a lot more complex than that (as your current vantage point is ALWAYS at rest baring gravitational and acceleration effects) but that is the gist of it. The idea that time is constant or uniform is completely incorrect and only ingrained as a given because people do not generally see or experience forces large enough to generate any relativistic effects.

 

[PostmodernProph]

logically you would both be wrong....light is not time, therefore if moving faster than light you would not be separate from time, you would be separate from light.....

you would also likely be dead, as the first bug you got in your teeth on your motorcycle at 186k mps would snap your neck..........

Not FASTER but near to light speed and no, you are incorrect. The passage of time is directly related to relative velocity. The closer you get to the speed of light, the slower time passes. At the speed of light, time ceases to exists entirely.

ummm....no......if I exist and experience time and light, I may experience the light at point B, then move to point A and experience the light there.....if I move from point B to point A so quickly that the light I experienced at point B has not arrived with me, I still experience the the movement from B to A, the light which was at point B and the light which I find at point A......those three experiences are all separated by time......

No, you don't (though beating your own light there is impossible with our current understanding of physics).

Again, time is directly related to relative velocity. You experience time differently than someone that is in motion relative to each other. It gets a lot more complex than that (as your current vantage point is ALWAYS at rest baring gravitational and acceleration effects) but that is the gist of it. The idea that time is constant or uniform is completely incorrect and only ingrained as a given because people do not generally see or experience forces large enough to generate any relativistic effects.

the error that causes your misunderstanding is the assumption that we need to refer to a particular beam of light.....if I experience light at point A, then move somewhat faster than light "downstream" from the lightsource, it may take a second or more for that particular light beam to reach me, but I still experience that second of time passing......there is light at point B, its merely not the same light as we experienced at point A until that particular beam of light catches up with us......

 

[Taz]

logically you would both be wrong....light is not time, therefore if moving faster than light you would not be separate from time, you would be separate from light.....

you would also likely be dead, as the first bug you got in your teeth on your motorcycle at 186k mps would snap your neck..........

Not FASTER but near to light speed and no, you are incorrect. The passage of time is directly related to relative velocity. The closer you get to the speed of light, the slower time passes. At the speed of light, time ceases to exists entirely.

ummm....no......if I exist and experience time and light, I may experience the light at point B, then move to point A and experience the light there.....if I move from point B to point A so quickly that the light I experienced at point B has not arrived with me, I still experience the the movement from B to A, the light which was at point B and the light which I find at point A......those three experiences are all separated by time......

No, you don't (though beating your own light there is impossible with our current understanding of physics).

Again, time is directly related to relative velocity. You experience time differently than someone that is in motion relative to each other. It gets a lot more complex than that (as your current vantage point is ALWAYS at rest baring gravitational and acceleration effects) but that is the gist of it. The idea that time is constant or uniform is completely incorrect and only ingrained as a given because people do not generally see or experience forces large enough to generate any relativistic effects.

the error that causes your misunderstanding is the assumption that we need to refer to a particular beam of light.....if I experience light at point A, then move somewhat faster than light "downstream" from the lightsource, it may take a second or more for that particular light beam to reach me, but I still experience that second of time passing......there is light at point B, its merely not the same light as we experienced at point A until that particular beam of light catches up with us......

And if you stick 2 kangaroos on that beam of light, you MIGHT be able to get them to Noah's Ark from Australia.