Thread: Space Travel.

Light moves 670,000,000 million miles per hour. Thats a rounded number. The earth travels around the sun at a little more than a million miles a day how does everything travel at the speed of light ?

Originally Posted by freedom21

Light moves 670,000,000 million miles per hour. Thats a rounded number. The earth travels around the sun at a little more than a million miles a day how does everything travel at the speed of light ?

Your numbers are not relevant. You are considering the speed of light to be nothing more than a measure of motion through space. This is not correct. The speed of light is constant in space-time. Space-time also has a temporal component. When considered in the context of motion through space-time, the speed of light is constant. Notice that your units for the speed of light also include a temporal element.

If you want to ignore time, as you have been doing so far, then perhaps you should just use Newtonian physics. In this case, nothing can move at the speed of light other than light. Since this violates your initial desire, I assumed that you were interested in a scenario where it is possible.

The meaning of the "speed of light" is different for Newtonian physics, where nothing can go at the speed of light other than light and where the speed of light is constant in space, and relativity, where everything moves at the speed of light and where the speed of light is constant in space-time.

Originally Posted by freedom21

The earth travels around the sun at a little more than a million miles a day how does everything travel at the speed of light ?

It doesn't! where does this 'everything travels at the speed of light' thing come from?

Your just spitting out other peoples theories. Think about this if the earth started moving toward the sun at the speed it moves around it then it would take 93 days for the earth to reach the sun. Correct? But it takes light but a few minutes to reach the earth.

I agree against religion too it is also just another man made explanation to things we cannot comprehend.

Originally Posted by Hermes

and relativity, where everything moves at the speed of light .

Yes so you keep insisting! Hermes.
If you are saying this is a part of modern physics(its been proven and accepted) can you elaborate on this? because I honestly don't remember ever being taught this. Appart from not being able to believe that this could be true as a general statement, I cannot see a single reference frame in which this would be true.

Originally Posted by Hermes

and where the speed of light is constant in space-time.

Yes that is true.

If time were real there would be no difference in space time and our time. Except for the differences in which we cannot explain. Look there are alot of things that we cant explain and there are alot of theories that try to explain them. Some make sense to answer the question at hand. Others prove those wrong. Thats human nature to try to explain things we cannot understand, thats not wrong. To truly believe the explanations we come up with, that could be wrong.

Originally Posted by freedom21

If time were real there would be no difference in space time and our time. Except for the differences in which we cannot explain. Look there are alot of things that we cant explain and there are alot of theories that try to explain them. Some make sense to answer the question at hand. Others prove those wrong. Thats human nature to try to explain things we cannot understand, thats not wrong. To truly believe the explanations we come up with, that could be wrong.

Well, Nothing is science is really considered at a 100% proof level, but to discount what mountains of emperical evidence shows to us because "there a a lot of things we can't explain" is little more than childish.

I respect what your saying and thats why these are just my beliefs. I have no education. So as to scientific theories/scientific law I have no knowledge but what I have read. I do not discredit time altogether i think that time is a useful means of measurement and without it the world would be chaotic. I think that theories should be left as theories until proven to be scientific law. There are mountains of emperical evidence out there and some of the smartest people in the world trying to put it together but that does not mean the are putting it together right.

If you look at alot of these theories that these people put together they prove eachother wrong in alot of them. But to build a belief system around some of them is in my opinion wrong. Its just as ludacris as saying that the world was created in 7 days 5,000 years ago. This is just an ignorant explaination to something we cant explain.

Originally Posted by freedom21

If you look at alot of these theories that these people put together they prove eachother wrong in alot of them. .

You see you are mixing speculative theories with proven theories. It is confusing especially for one unversed in science, but basically mainstay theories are never validly challenged(that is challenged by someone who understands properly what they are challenging) let alone proven wrong.
It's important to make a distinction between proven physics(such as quantum mechs, relativity and bigbang) and speculative physics(such as parallel universe, unified field theory or the kid next door says his day will kick the ass of every guy in the street theory).

i understand.

A theory like the big bang is just a theory though nothing more we dont understand our own planet yet so how can we begin to understand something like how the universe was formed. Its an educated guess that sounds good because it answers a question that we had no idea what the answer was. Its just the most logical answer a person could come up with.

I am not quite sure what you have been reading or watching but paralell universes are more real than the big bang theory.

I understand the need to have an explanation for things we cant explain. There might not be a way everything came to be it might just exsist and thats that. Its scary I know but it might just be that way and whats even scarier is that there might not be any explanation to it. Its only scary though because it gives us a sense of helplessness. Helplessness drives the need for explanation.

Originally Posted by freedom21

I am not quite sure what you have been reading or watching but paralell universes are more real than the big bang theory.

OH DONT BE AN INBECILE. You have been watching too much T.V.

Originally Posted by freedom21

i understand.

A theory like the big bang is just a theory though nothing more we dont understand our own planet yet so how can we begin to understand something like how the universe was formed. Its an educated guess that sounds good because it answers a question that we had no idea what the answer was. Its just the most logical answer a person could come up with.

No that is complete rubbish. The bigbang has much evidence to back it up as well as being predictive(a much coveted achievement for any theory).

Originally Posted by freedom21

I understand the need to have an explanation for things we cant explain. There might not be a way everything came to be it might just exsist and thats that. Its scary I know but it might just be that way and whats even scarier is that there might not be any explanation to it. Its only scary though because it gives us a sense of helplessness. Helplessness drives the need for explanation.

Whats scary to me, is people who understand nothing of science yet perpetually think they know it all because they saw something on T.V. and thus bring it upon theirselves to patronize people who have actually studied physics and generally bash science from a stand point of ignorence.

if you read any recently written texts they specifically name the big bang theory as a hypothesis. I mean the big bang theory only explains why distant galaxies are moving away from our galaxy thats the only thing that lead scientists to trust this hypothesis. Read up.

I dont base my beliefs on television I read as you do. Just cause I have not studied it does not mean that I dont have an understanding of it. I just dont base my belief on everything I read or in your everything you study. I think you study these things and read them over and over then you start to believe them just as a child does with christmas. You have to open your mind more my friend and look outside of the box.

Form your own opinions. Dont make others yours.

By the way I dont own a Telivision it turns your mind to mush.

Originally Posted by freedom21

if you read any recently written texts they specifically name the big bang theory as a hypothesis.

Present one! I will be more than happy to present several saying bigbang is a substantiated theory(and they will be accredited)

Originally Posted by freedom21

I mean the big bang theory only explains why distant galaxies are moving away from our galaxy thats the only thing that lead scientists to trust this hypothesis. Read up.

No! it explains how protons and electron first came about, then how the first H and He elements formed from this then how supernovae exploded creating other elements etc, etc........... Anyway there is evidence still today for the bigbang, a wide range of complementry evidence and some which was predicted to be so, IT HAS IMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.


And dont tell me to read up! I dont wish to taint my education with the imbeciles alternative book to physics or what ever claptrap you have been reading.

Your education is tainted already my friend all those books you were told to study for what?

To gain an understanding? Or to have someonelses beliefs pressed upon yourself so they become your own?

Yes the primeval atom sounds like hogwash to me its as crazy as the Catholic story of creation.

You cant put an age on things you dont understand. It is our human nature to have to have an understanding of the universes around us, but at least form your own opinion on it.

I have read Professor Paul Shestople, Schramm, Turner, Kron, Marcus Chown, John Gribbon, and even Steven Weinberg you might have read some of these as well. Just form your own opinion.

Originally Posted by freedom21

and even Steven Weinberg .

Im changing that signature. I have in fact never read anything by the guy, I just love the sentiment of the quote.

Look I apologize for being overly brash, there was no need.

thats quite alright everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I think you are a good person for expressing yours with such definition I happen to agree with the quote

Weinburg states some good points in his texts

What does the big bang theory predict that doesn't have alternative explanations? :?

Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff

What does the big bang theory predict that doesn't have alternative explanations? :?

Can you name any notion in all of science that doesn't have alternative explanations?

I think that there are alot of things out there we have no explanations for so we make explanations upon explanations until we find a few that make the most sense. The language of science itself is man made, not saying its wrong, but it answers questions to our surroundings.

Which makes us sleep better at night. With every answer we feel a little better about ourselves because without understanding we are mere animals. Before any human walk the earth there was the earth itself with which it exsists.

The simplest answer tends to be the right answer Occums Razor

The uncertainty is what drives the need for answers.
The theories answer the uncertainties.
But the uncertainty is more simple than the equations and theories we come up with as answers to the uncertain.

you shouldn't invent new things to explain something that can possibly be explained by extant things.

Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff

What does the big bang theory predict that doesn't have alternative explanations? :?

Put it this way: evidence found and then a theory constructed on the evidence is good. Evidence found to back up a prediction from a theory is pretty well cast iron, but OK the bigbang probably isn't as cast iron as some science.
An alternative explanation could be found for anything in since is a naive and feeble cliche.

Originally Posted by freedom21

I think that there are alot of things out there we have no explanations for so we make explanations upon explanations until we find a few that make the most sense.

You have discovered science.

The language of science itself is man made, not saying its wrong, but it answers questions to our surroundings.

What language is not man-made?

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

Evidence found to back up a prediction from a theory is pretty well cast iron,

This sounds good, but what does cast iron mean? Science is not about proof, you know.

An alternative explanation could be found for anything in since is a naive and feeble cliche.

If you rewrite this, then I might better understand what you mean. Also, of all the things that you might call it, I don't think that either naive or cliche applies. Do you really? If so, why? Furthermore, given the context in which this statement was made, do you think that it is not accurate?

Desination alpha centrury
warp 5

Originally Posted by Hermes

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

Evidence found to back up a prediction from a theory is pretty well cast iron,

This sounds good, but what does cast iron mean? Science is not about proof, you know.

An alternative explanation could be found for anything in since is a naive and feeble cliche.

If you rewrite this, then I might better understand what you mean. Also, of all the things that you might call it, I don't think that either naive or cliche applies. Do you really? If so, why? Furthermore, given the context in which this statement was made, do you think that it is not accurate?

You know I meant 'science', I've been getting so much BS thrusted upon me lately that I've lost pride (and of course you are perfect in your grammar).

"An alternative explanation could be found for anything in science" is a naive and feeble cliche.

I think it is not accurate because from a stand point of understanding, there is much that may be adjusted or added to, but fundementally much of science has past so many tests and only ever been built on that all but the most generous scientists would never agree to such a friverlous statement.

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

You know I meant 'science',

It is so nice that you know what I know, without my need to actually be involved in it.

I've been getting so much BS thrustr upon me lately that I've lost pride (and of course you are perfect in your grammar).

If you do not understand what I mean, then I would prefer that you ask, rather than desire that I pretend that you surely know exactly what I mean. If I knew exactly what you meant, then why would I have asked?

"An alternative explanation could be found for anything in science" is a naive and feeble cliche.

I think it is not accurate because from a stand point of understanding, there is much that may be adjusted or added to, but fundementally much of science has past so many tests and only ever been built on that all but the most generous scientists would agree to such a friverlous statement.

I think that you are completely mistaken. You are obviously putting much more in my words that I put there. The original point, which was NOT mine, had to do with whether or not there could be alternative explanations. It had nothing to do with whether there must be alternative explanations that are superior. You put this meaning there. I did not. Are you actually saying that every single person in the entire world of science can ever agree 100% on anything at all, where there is not a single person who has an alternaive scientific explanation? If so, then I think that you are deluding yourself. If not, then you agree with me. You say that science has passed so many tests. This seems to me to miss the point entirely. At each step of the way, there was difference of opinion. Do you disagree? If you do not disagree, then you agree with me. I cannot believe that you seriously disagree with me on this. I suspect that you are just reading far, far, far more into these words, which are NOT mine, that are actually there.