The Heavens Declare The Glory Of God
- Thread starter Guest
- Start date
- Status
sastark
Puritan Board Graduate
[quote:dafc6b883d][i:dafc6b883d]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:dafc6b883d]
Light is all electromagnetic energy. Not just the visible spectrum we see from the sun/stars. [/quote:dafc6b883d]
So, does that mean that when God seperated the light from the dark, He actually seperated electromagnetic energy from the dark? Was there actual visible light when God said let there be light? Or was in invisible (to the human eye, at least) light? Another way to ask this is, did God only create the invisib;e spectrum of light on the first day and then the visible spectrum on the 4th? When God said "Let there be light" there was light, why should only part of it have been created that first day?
It seems to me that a plain reading of Scripture points to the fac that there was visible light on the first day, three days before the Sun, Moon and Stars were created.
So, again, I say, for God to create light from stars that never existed is totally possible. He did it on the first day of creation.
Just some thoughts...
(Visi, if your post was not directed to me, my apologies! Your comment just provoked me to think, is all.)
Light is all electromagnetic energy. Not just the visible spectrum we see from the sun/stars. [/quote:dafc6b883d]
So, does that mean that when God seperated the light from the dark, He actually seperated electromagnetic energy from the dark? Was there actual visible light when God said let there be light? Or was in invisible (to the human eye, at least) light? Another way to ask this is, did God only create the invisib;e spectrum of light on the first day and then the visible spectrum on the 4th? When God said "Let there be light" there was light, why should only part of it have been created that first day?
It seems to me that a plain reading of Scripture points to the fac that there was visible light on the first day, three days before the Sun, Moon and Stars were created.
So, again, I say, for God to create light from stars that never existed is totally possible. He did it on the first day of creation.
Just some thoughts...
(Visi, if your post was not directed to me, my apologies! Your comment just provoked me to think, is all.)
sastark
Puritan Board Graduate
[quote:c6aae98722][i:c6aae98722]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:c6aae98722]
I appreciate some of your thoughts, but this statement is problematic. It can't be light from STARS that NEVEr EXISTED. Maybe He created light particles...or whatever...but you can't say that he created light from a STAR that NEVER EXISTED.
-Paul [/quote:c6aae98722]
Yes, you wrote what I was thinking.
It is possible for God to create light without stars. Hence, what we see in the night sky may be light in and of itself, not "light from stars that never existed". Thanks for clarifying me!
BTW- Here is something to ponder: If, in fact the lights we see at night are not associated with stars, then why would light from other "stars" be affected by the gravitational pull of a star that doesn't exist? In other words, how could light beam A be affected by the gravitational pull from light beam B, if there are no stars generating the light? Light in and of itself does not create gravity. So, maybe God created both the stars and the light covering the space from the stars to Earth. Thoughts?
I appreciate some of your thoughts, but this statement is problematic. It can't be light from STARS that NEVEr EXISTED. Maybe He created light particles...or whatever...but you can't say that he created light from a STAR that NEVER EXISTED.
-Paul [/quote:c6aae98722]
Yes, you wrote what I was thinking.
It is possible for God to create light without stars. Hence, what we see in the night sky may be light in and of itself, not "light from stars that never existed". Thanks for clarifying me!
BTW- Here is something to ponder: If, in fact the lights we see at night are not associated with stars, then why would light from other "stars" be affected by the gravitational pull of a star that doesn't exist? In other words, how could light beam A be affected by the gravitational pull from light beam B, if there are no stars generating the light? Light in and of itself does not create gravity. So, maybe God created both the stars and the light covering the space from the stars to Earth. Thoughts?
JohnV, you certainly ask a number of very relevant questions regarding both general and specific relativity. i'll try to just give the bottom line on a few of them, because obviously volumes have been written on each.
yes, in general relativity (GR) the speed of light in any consistent medium is an absolute and unchanging constant, regardless of the motion of the source. This is vital. To make the contrast evident, the speed of anything else is not an absolute constant in this manner. For example, if you throw a baseball 50 mph from a car moving 20 mph....then the resultant speed of the baseball thrown from the car is 70 mph. But, if you emit a flash of light from a vehicle going half the speed of light - the flash you emit is NOT going 1.5 times the speed of light....it is only going the speed of light just as if you had emitted the light while not moving.
Now, mathematically, this is of unspeakable importance. To make a very long and complicated story short - it can be shown that IF the speed of light is constant, then virtually every other aspect of physics in the universe IS NOT A CONSTANT. This includes mass (you objectively become heavier as your speed increases toward the speed of light, this is not just more perceived weight, this is an actual change in mass), the length of an object changes, and of course, time moves much slower as you approach the speed of light.
length, mass and time are not constant - but the speed of light is. Additionally, time is also dependent upon gravitational force....time literally passes more slowly on a mountain than at sea level (because the gravitational force is lower at the top of the mountain).
there is a fundamental and proven set of equations relating mass, length, and time and how they change depending on the speed of the object in question.
i just wanted to give a brief overview of the concepts first, and then if you still have more questions, i'll be happy to try and address those. hope this helps some.
edit:
and by the way, to address something else in the thread. Personally, i do not accept the idea that the speed of light could have been different in the past. Changing this constant will dramatically affect every interaction of every piece of matter in the universe. Electron orbits and speeds would change, the energy from nuclear reactions (crucial in the formation and nature of stars) would be altered by gigantic proportions.
From a physics view, if the speed of light was different than it is now, then it would be a totally unpredictable universe. EVERYTHING would alter radically, and the world as we know it could not exist...let alone the consequences that would happen once the speed of light changed from it's "old" previous speed to it's current speed, that would be catastrophic in and of itself.
to give an example of how radically everything would change - let's take the example of the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. If the speed of light when that bomb was dropped was only 15% greater than it is now......then the ensuing blast would have released 10^15 TIMES MORE ENERGY. Hopefully, this gives you an idea of how much all nuclear physics, chemistry, and astronomy would change if the crucial speed of light were different.
[Edited on 3-13-2004 by smhbbag]
yes, in general relativity (GR) the speed of light in any consistent medium is an absolute and unchanging constant, regardless of the motion of the source. This is vital. To make the contrast evident, the speed of anything else is not an absolute constant in this manner. For example, if you throw a baseball 50 mph from a car moving 20 mph....then the resultant speed of the baseball thrown from the car is 70 mph. But, if you emit a flash of light from a vehicle going half the speed of light - the flash you emit is NOT going 1.5 times the speed of light....it is only going the speed of light just as if you had emitted the light while not moving.
Now, mathematically, this is of unspeakable importance. To make a very long and complicated story short - it can be shown that IF the speed of light is constant, then virtually every other aspect of physics in the universe IS NOT A CONSTANT. This includes mass (you objectively become heavier as your speed increases toward the speed of light, this is not just more perceived weight, this is an actual change in mass), the length of an object changes, and of course, time moves much slower as you approach the speed of light.
length, mass and time are not constant - but the speed of light is. Additionally, time is also dependent upon gravitational force....time literally passes more slowly on a mountain than at sea level (because the gravitational force is lower at the top of the mountain).
there is a fundamental and proven set of equations relating mass, length, and time and how they change depending on the speed of the object in question.
i just wanted to give a brief overview of the concepts first, and then if you still have more questions, i'll be happy to try and address those. hope this helps some.
edit:
and by the way, to address something else in the thread. Personally, i do not accept the idea that the speed of light could have been different in the past. Changing this constant will dramatically affect every interaction of every piece of matter in the universe. Electron orbits and speeds would change, the energy from nuclear reactions (crucial in the formation and nature of stars) would be altered by gigantic proportions.
From a physics view, if the speed of light was different than it is now, then it would be a totally unpredictable universe. EVERYTHING would alter radically, and the world as we know it could not exist...let alone the consequences that would happen once the speed of light changed from it's "old" previous speed to it's current speed, that would be catastrophic in and of itself.
to give an example of how radically everything would change - let's take the example of the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. If the speed of light when that bomb was dropped was only 15% greater than it is now......then the ensuing blast would have released 10^15 TIMES MORE ENERGY. Hopefully, this gives you an idea of how much all nuclear physics, chemistry, and astronomy would change if the crucial speed of light were different.
[Edited on 3-13-2004 by smhbbag]
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Smhbbag:
I was hoping you would respond. I guess you're our resident physics expert.
You know, I have Hawking's book right here. Things like this interest me. But Hawking doesn't help me out here.
[quote:6e66b465bd]length, mass and time are not constant - but the speed of light is. Additionally, time is also dependent upon gravitational force....time literally passes more slowly on a mountain than at sea level (because the gravitational force is lower at the top of the mountain).
there is a fundamental and proven set of equations relating mass, length, and time and how they change depending on the speed of the object in question. [/quote:6e66b465bd]
So help me out here, please. If length and mass and time are dependant on the speed of light, then how do you define the speed of light, if it cannot be distance divided by time? How can one assert a value based on things that are contingent of that which is being valued? What exactly is being talked about when you refer to "the speed of light"?
And if 'time' (and I suppose 'distance' as well) are also (in addition to the speed of light) subject to gravitational influences, what do they have to do with determining what the speed of light is? Or is it that they don't anymore? Is unit of distance per unit of time a definition of the speed of light?
If the speed of light is a constant, are you granting the same kind of value to the speed of light as philosophers do to truth and goodness? Are they corelative? I mean by that, that in philosophy truth is necessarily assumed in order to either deny or affirm anything, even truth itself. Is that how the speed of light is regarded in scientific assumptions as well? If this is so, then the "speed" of light is a misnomer, for "speed" infers a distance divided by time formula, when in fact it is an assumed constant that is not determined by formula but rather by inescapable necessity. One may as well talk about the "speed" of truth, or the "distance" of righteousness, as about the "speed" of light.
Am I close in these thoughts, or am I way off base here? This is where I am lost, I don't know what science means by the terms it uses. They don't seem to correspond to the philosophical terms.
I was hoping you would respond. I guess you're our resident physics expert.
You know, I have Hawking's book right here. Things like this interest me. But Hawking doesn't help me out here.
[quote:6e66b465bd]length, mass and time are not constant - but the speed of light is. Additionally, time is also dependent upon gravitational force....time literally passes more slowly on a mountain than at sea level (because the gravitational force is lower at the top of the mountain).
there is a fundamental and proven set of equations relating mass, length, and time and how they change depending on the speed of the object in question. [/quote:6e66b465bd]
So help me out here, please. If length and mass and time are dependant on the speed of light, then how do you define the speed of light, if it cannot be distance divided by time? How can one assert a value based on things that are contingent of that which is being valued? What exactly is being talked about when you refer to "the speed of light"?
And if 'time' (and I suppose 'distance' as well) are also (in addition to the speed of light) subject to gravitational influences, what do they have to do with determining what the speed of light is? Or is it that they don't anymore? Is unit of distance per unit of time a definition of the speed of light?
If the speed of light is a constant, are you granting the same kind of value to the speed of light as philosophers do to truth and goodness? Are they corelative? I mean by that, that in philosophy truth is necessarily assumed in order to either deny or affirm anything, even truth itself. Is that how the speed of light is regarded in scientific assumptions as well? If this is so, then the "speed" of light is a misnomer, for "speed" infers a distance divided by time formula, when in fact it is an assumed constant that is not determined by formula but rather by inescapable necessity. One may as well talk about the "speed" of truth, or the "distance" of righteousness, as about the "speed" of light.
Am I close in these thoughts, or am I way off base here? This is where I am lost, I don't know what science means by the terms it uses. They don't seem to correspond to the philosophical terms.
[quote:b2f1234b9a]So help me out here, please. If length and mass and time are dependant on the speed of light, then how do you define the speed of light, if it cannot be distance divided by time? How can one assert a value based on things that are contingent of that which is being valued? What exactly is being talked about when you refer to "the speed of light"? [/quote:b2f1234b9a]
very good questions. i'll try and go in order addressing them. First, the speed of light must necessarily be measured by an observer. That observer will be forced to use both the time and distance passed by the light [i:b2f1234b9a]as it appears to him[/i:b2f1234b9a]. Now, this is where the great postulate of GR comes in - the speed of light will be measured identically by all observers regardless of their motion relative to the light. So, two observers may come up with different apparent times and distances for the light, but that distance divided by the time will be identical. Also, when we refer to the speed of light, we are 99% of the time talking about the speed of light in a vacuum, simply for convenience. Of course, the speed of light in water is slower than it is in the vacuum, but this is the reason for the qualification in my last post that the speed of light "in any consistent medium" is constant regardless of the motion of the source or the observer.
[quote:b2f1234b9a]And if 'time' (and I suppose 'distance' as well) are also (in addition to the speed of light) subject to gravitational influences, what do they have to do with determining what the speed of light is? Or is it that they don't anymore? Is unit of distance per unit of time a definition of the speed of light? [/quote:b2f1234b9a]
i'm not sure i understand what you're asking in the first part of that paragraph, but i think the answer may lie in what i just wrote. Regardless of the gravity acting on the observer, all observers will, in the end, come up with identical calculations for the speed of light. And the answer to the last question is "Yes." The speed of light (C) is always defined in units of length divided by units of time (usually meters per second).
[quote:b2f1234b9a]If the speed of light is a constant, are you granting the same kind of value to the speed of light as philosophers do to truth and goodness? Are they corelative? I mean by that, that in philosophy truth is necessarily assumed in order to either deny or affirm anything, even truth itself. Is that how the speed of light is regarded in scientific assumptions as well? If this is so, then the "speed" of light is a misnomer, for "speed" infers a distance divided by time formula, when in fact it is an assumed constant that is not determined by formula but rather by inescapable necessity. One may as well talk about the "speed" of truth, or the "distance" of righteousness, as about the "speed" of light. [/quote:b2f1234b9a]
hopefully my previous statements would clarify this a bit, as this is a logical outcome of your questions. The speed of light is certainly not assumed out of necessity, but measured and calculated scientifically. Every single postulate of GR comes directly from the thoroughly proven idea that the speed of light is a constant. Mathematically, it is fact that if the speed of light is constant, then for any object with mass - it's mass, length, and experience of time depend on its speed. According to the math, either the speed of light must not be a constant, or all of these other physics concepts must not be a constant.
and to lighten things up a bit, if you ever want to lose some mass, just SLOW DOWN. :roll: so every time you hit the brakes on your car, you can say "hey, i just lost some weight", just don't hit the accelerator again or you'll gain it all back - talk about your roller-coaster weight loss systems
[Edited on 3-13-2004 by smhbbag]
very good questions. i'll try and go in order addressing them. First, the speed of light must necessarily be measured by an observer. That observer will be forced to use both the time and distance passed by the light [i:b2f1234b9a]as it appears to him[/i:b2f1234b9a]. Now, this is where the great postulate of GR comes in - the speed of light will be measured identically by all observers regardless of their motion relative to the light. So, two observers may come up with different apparent times and distances for the light, but that distance divided by the time will be identical. Also, when we refer to the speed of light, we are 99% of the time talking about the speed of light in a vacuum, simply for convenience. Of course, the speed of light in water is slower than it is in the vacuum, but this is the reason for the qualification in my last post that the speed of light "in any consistent medium" is constant regardless of the motion of the source or the observer.
[quote:b2f1234b9a]And if 'time' (and I suppose 'distance' as well) are also (in addition to the speed of light) subject to gravitational influences, what do they have to do with determining what the speed of light is? Or is it that they don't anymore? Is unit of distance per unit of time a definition of the speed of light? [/quote:b2f1234b9a]
i'm not sure i understand what you're asking in the first part of that paragraph, but i think the answer may lie in what i just wrote. Regardless of the gravity acting on the observer, all observers will, in the end, come up with identical calculations for the speed of light. And the answer to the last question is "Yes." The speed of light (C) is always defined in units of length divided by units of time (usually meters per second).
[quote:b2f1234b9a]If the speed of light is a constant, are you granting the same kind of value to the speed of light as philosophers do to truth and goodness? Are they corelative? I mean by that, that in philosophy truth is necessarily assumed in order to either deny or affirm anything, even truth itself. Is that how the speed of light is regarded in scientific assumptions as well? If this is so, then the "speed" of light is a misnomer, for "speed" infers a distance divided by time formula, when in fact it is an assumed constant that is not determined by formula but rather by inescapable necessity. One may as well talk about the "speed" of truth, or the "distance" of righteousness, as about the "speed" of light. [/quote:b2f1234b9a]
hopefully my previous statements would clarify this a bit, as this is a logical outcome of your questions. The speed of light is certainly not assumed out of necessity, but measured and calculated scientifically. Every single postulate of GR comes directly from the thoroughly proven idea that the speed of light is a constant. Mathematically, it is fact that if the speed of light is constant, then for any object with mass - it's mass, length, and experience of time depend on its speed. According to the math, either the speed of light must not be a constant, or all of these other physics concepts must not be a constant.
and to lighten things up a bit, if you ever want to lose some mass, just SLOW DOWN. :roll: so every time you hit the brakes on your car, you can say "hey, i just lost some weight", just don't hit the accelerator again or you'll gain it all back - talk about your roller-coaster weight loss systems
[Edited on 3-13-2004 by smhbbag]
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[quote:9410028128]The speed of light is certainly not assumed out of necessity, but measured and calculated scientifically. Every single postulate of GR comes directly from the thoroughly proven idea that the speed of light is a constant. Mathematically, it is fact that if the speed of light is constant, then for any object with mass - it's mass, length, and experience of time depend on its speed. According to the math, either the speed of light must not be a constant, or all of these other physics concepts must not be a constant. [/quote:9410028128]
Any object of mass?
Does light have mass too?
I still don't understand how we can get from calculating two contingencies, (distance and time) and get a constant. Especially when the constant we are calculating is the contingent we are seeking.
If you divide miles by gallons, you get miles per gallon; if you measure speed you get feet per second, or kms/sec, or miles per hour. You always get a measurement relative to things you measure by. But (it seems to me) with speed of light you suddenly get something that is not altered by the things that are used to measure it, nor is it relative to them in terms of value. Instead it can be stated this way: (relative) distance divided by (relative) time equals (constant) speed.
Well, here's the bottom line question: if the speed of light is constant, and time and distance are relative to the speed of light, then is it not also possible that the speed of light, under certain circumstances, such as contingencies in space, is immeasureable? In other words, is it not possible that light itself, as it travels, can have an apparent age, like everything else that is created must also have by definition? What criteria does science use to determine that if a supernova, 100,000 light years away, flares up, that it happened 100,000 years ago? Is is not actually like the geologic dating system, that the further back you go the greater the margin of error, and that giving rise to the possibility of a date that may have a margin of error as great or greater than itself?
I think I understand that the speed of light is constant given a consistent medium, like in a vacuum. And no matter where one is or what speed one goes, the speed of light is the same. Always! And this works in scientific calculations. But is it not funny how everything created is effected by the speed of light, except light itself? What if that were not so? What if light too is effected (relative to) by the speed of light?
See what I'm getting at? That flaring supernova doesn't have to mean that the supernova, or the universe for that matter, is at least 100,000 years old. God could have managed the time and the distance (since they are contingent) and the light could have been here in a mere minute, including all the information within the light rays, such as supernovas flaring. Or He could have created light with a greater apparent age than we assume. (I'm just thinking out loud)
Anyways, the Hawking model is still more mysterious than it is revealing, at least to me. But then I am not a scientist.
Any object of mass?
Does light have mass too?
I still don't understand how we can get from calculating two contingencies, (distance and time) and get a constant. Especially when the constant we are calculating is the contingent we are seeking.
If you divide miles by gallons, you get miles per gallon; if you measure speed you get feet per second, or kms/sec, or miles per hour. You always get a measurement relative to things you measure by. But (it seems to me) with speed of light you suddenly get something that is not altered by the things that are used to measure it, nor is it relative to them in terms of value. Instead it can be stated this way: (relative) distance divided by (relative) time equals (constant) speed.
Well, here's the bottom line question: if the speed of light is constant, and time and distance are relative to the speed of light, then is it not also possible that the speed of light, under certain circumstances, such as contingencies in space, is immeasureable? In other words, is it not possible that light itself, as it travels, can have an apparent age, like everything else that is created must also have by definition? What criteria does science use to determine that if a supernova, 100,000 light years away, flares up, that it happened 100,000 years ago? Is is not actually like the geologic dating system, that the further back you go the greater the margin of error, and that giving rise to the possibility of a date that may have a margin of error as great or greater than itself?
I think I understand that the speed of light is constant given a consistent medium, like in a vacuum. And no matter where one is or what speed one goes, the speed of light is the same. Always! And this works in scientific calculations. But is it not funny how everything created is effected by the speed of light, except light itself? What if that were not so? What if light too is effected (relative to) by the speed of light?
See what I'm getting at? That flaring supernova doesn't have to mean that the supernova, or the universe for that matter, is at least 100,000 years old. God could have managed the time and the distance (since they are contingent) and the light could have been here in a mere minute, including all the information within the light rays, such as supernovas flaring. Or He could have created light with a greater apparent age than we assume. (I'm just thinking out loud)
Anyways, the Hawking model is still more mysterious than it is revealing, at least to me. But then I am not a scientist.
i think you might be getting tripped up by my imprecise use of the phrase "relative to the speed of light."
to be absolutely clear:
if I am travelling at some speed, lets say 1/2 the speed of light (.5C) - then MY MASS changes accordingly, MY experience of time changes, and MY perception of MY length is altered.
your statement "relative divided by relative gives a constant" is correct. The observers measurements of both time and distance will change depending on his velocity - but the division of those two numbers will give the same final constant for "C" even when calculated by different observers with different velocities.
I will try and find some sites online that have good presentations of GR - i think it would be much easier to communicate these things if i could draw figures and do sample calculations in front of you and actually discuss them, but alas, this board is limited in that regard.
i'll see what i can find for you, and i'll delay responding to your previous questions to try and find someone who can give a better and more systematic presentation of these things.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/qanda.html answers a lot of questions relating relativity and cosmology, and addressing many basic relativity questions. great answers regarding relativity, but cosmologically definitely not a creationist. look around there a bit
[Edited on 3-13-2004 by smhbbag]
to be absolutely clear:
if I am travelling at some speed, lets say 1/2 the speed of light (.5C) - then MY MASS changes accordingly, MY experience of time changes, and MY perception of MY length is altered.
your statement "relative divided by relative gives a constant" is correct. The observers measurements of both time and distance will change depending on his velocity - but the division of those two numbers will give the same final constant for "C" even when calculated by different observers with different velocities.
I will try and find some sites online that have good presentations of GR - i think it would be much easier to communicate these things if i could draw figures and do sample calculations in front of you and actually discuss them, but alas, this board is limited in that regard.
i'll see what i can find for you, and i'll delay responding to your previous questions to try and find someone who can give a better and more systematic presentation of these things.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/qanda.html answers a lot of questions relating relativity and cosmology, and addressing many basic relativity questions. great answers regarding relativity, but cosmologically definitely not a creationist. look around there a bit
[Edited on 3-13-2004 by smhbbag]
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
smhbbag:
You've been great. You've done better than Mr. Hawking, that's for sure.
I think I've got it now. We are talkiing about a different kind of "constant" than we talk about in philosophy, in a way. But if I was speeding along at 3/4C, and measured my time and distance, the equation would still come out at exactly the same as if I were almost standing still, that is if I were measuring the speed of light, whether instead of or in relation to my own speed. That now makes sense.
Actually that would hold true if I were sliding along on a hockey puck, measuring the speed of a hockey stick as it was about to hit me. Same principle. No matter how I was moving in relation to the stick, it would not change the speed of the stick, just the impact if I were moving either faster or slower. But that is where the speed of light differs, as I understand: the impact will be just as great if I were moving at 3/4C or 1/4C or standing still. Am I right? And that is because my perception of time and distance will change as I accelerate from 31/4C to 3/4C.
How am I doing?
At one time I used to be a sparkle in someone's eye. But my mass is now different than it was back then. But contrary to science, I have slowed down as I increased my mass. Oh to be a little ray of light again.
Thanks smhbbag. You've done a great job , considering you're dealing with a physics nincompoop like myself. But isn't it all amazing, regardless the scientific proficiency, or lack of it?
I'll try your little weight loss trick, but I'm afraid I'll have to pick up some speed before I slow down. I have my doubts. :biggrin:
You've been great. You've done better than Mr. Hawking, that's for sure.
I think I've got it now. We are talkiing about a different kind of "constant" than we talk about in philosophy, in a way. But if I was speeding along at 3/4C, and measured my time and distance, the equation would still come out at exactly the same as if I were almost standing still, that is if I were measuring the speed of light, whether instead of or in relation to my own speed. That now makes sense.
Actually that would hold true if I were sliding along on a hockey puck, measuring the speed of a hockey stick as it was about to hit me. Same principle. No matter how I was moving in relation to the stick, it would not change the speed of the stick, just the impact if I were moving either faster or slower. But that is where the speed of light differs, as I understand: the impact will be just as great if I were moving at 3/4C or 1/4C or standing still. Am I right? And that is because my perception of time and distance will change as I accelerate from 31/4C to 3/4C.
How am I doing?
At one time I used to be a sparkle in someone's eye. But my mass is now different than it was back then. But contrary to science, I have slowed down as I increased my mass. Oh to be a little ray of light again.
Thanks smhbbag. You've done a great job , considering you're dealing with a physics nincompoop like myself. But isn't it all amazing, regardless the scientific proficiency, or lack of it?
I'll try your little weight loss trick, but I'm afraid I'll have to pick up some speed before I slow down. I have my doubts. :biggrin:
sastark
Puritan Board Graduate
[quote:db1e17980b][i:db1e17980b]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:db1e17980b]
I am no scientist. I have no idea. I try to be silent on topics I don't understand and learn from others. but now because of this my curiosity is peeked...so now I will have to study this stuff. So, I will be back in a year and give you my thoughts
-Paul [/quote:db1e17980b]
I wish I could take a year and just study some of this stuff! Anybody know where I can get a grant for this?
I am no scientist. I have no idea. I try to be silent on topics I don't understand and learn from others. but now because of this my curiosity is peeked...so now I will have to study this stuff. So, I will be back in a year and give you my thoughts
-Paul [/quote:db1e17980b]
I wish I could take a year and just study some of this stuff! Anybody know where I can get a grant for this?
[quote:a4ec5ed84d]
if I am travelling at some speed, lets say 1/2 the speed of light (.5C) - then MY MASS changes accordingly, MY experience of time changes, and MY perception of MY length is altered.
[/quote:a4ec5ed84d]
As one accelerates towards C, his mass does change, but not necessarily his volume, so how does one perceive any difference in length ? ??
if I am travelling at some speed, lets say 1/2 the speed of light (.5C) - then MY MASS changes accordingly, MY experience of time changes, and MY perception of MY length is altered.
[/quote:a4ec5ed84d]
As one accelerates towards C, his mass does change, but not necessarily his volume, so how does one perceive any difference in length ? ??
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
