|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
jonesc2ii Loyal user Oxford, England 235 Posts |
But there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the speed of light isn't (or hasn't always been and therefore isn't) constant. Which would surely throw doubt onto a lot of currently accepted 'fact'?
www.ixyl.co.uk/forums - for when you fancy a debate or a quiet chat.
|
|||||||||
Greg Arce Inner circle 6732 Posts |
I'm reminded of a Steven Wright line: If you're traveling in a car at the speed of light and you turn on your headlights, will they work?
And another one from him: I put instant coffee in a microwave and I went back in time. And still another one: I went to a restaurant that served Breakfast Any time so I ordered pancakes during the Renaissance Greg
One of my favorite quotes: "A critic is a legless man who teaches running."
|
|||||||||
Beetroot Loyal user 267 Posts |
This is such a great discussion!
Quote:
jonesc2i wrote: I'm with jonesc2i on this one. Theories are just that and are often a model which approximates to reality often within given constraints. Even Einstein changed his opinion as new evidence came in. Potentially anything is possible when we find out how! Quote:
KingStardog wrote: It would be fun to watch the stuff falling out and not put the stuff in in the future. This would mean that the past would then depend on a future that didn't exist. Oh... the possibilities. Quote:
On 2004-01-27 13:54, jonesc2ii wrote: And I'm with you on this as well. I am constantly amused by science (particularly TV programs whose quality vary considerably) that represent things as fact - eg. the time of the dinosaurs and the process of evolution. There may be evidence to suggest or even strongly suggest that these things are so, but we can never be entirely sure because we weren't there. |
|||||||||
mattpuglisi Veteran user New York 321 Posts |
For those interested in the philosophical import of the findings of contemporary science: Read Robert Nozick's "Invariances".
Nozick explores an empirically-based form of relativism where 'objectivity' is 'invariance under specified transformations'. This relativism entails a skepticism about metaphysical necessity, one based heavily on contemporary science (especially QM). The aforementioned issues on time travel and quantum weirdness (e.g. the double slit experiment, nonlocality, entanglement) are considered with great vigor, and used to shed light on many philosophical issues.
Lack of invention is the mother of necessity - Robert Nozick
Instagram: @matthewthomas00 |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts |
'Covariant' sounds like nice name for a model of car. Would that be a Ford, or perhaps a Dodge?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
MacGyver Inner circle St. Louis, MO 1419 Posts |
The speed of light being constant hasn't thrown anything out of whack, it has always been determined as the speed of energy which is the fastest possible thing.
Even though it might be flexible over time and over medium's based on gravity, matter and the like, it's still always been the Max. The correct statement isn't that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, its: Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light with respect to local distance markers. Faster than light travel is possible when factoring in the curvature of spacetime, because light bends with it. Even right now there are objects moving towards us and away from us faster than the speed of light, do to the curvature of spacetime. They themselves might be at rest, but because of spacetime, their relative position to earth is changing faster than the speed of light. The only catch is with that, and with worm-hole based time travel, is we need to have a way of creating negative energy, stuff that would actually subtract energy from something else, whcih we can't create or anything... Oh well. |
|||||||||
Greg Arce Inner circle 6732 Posts |
Wow, it's like I'm back in a science class... my head is spinning... can someone ask me to pick a card or something?
Greg
One of my favorite quotes: "A critic is a legless man who teaches running."
|
|||||||||
Christopher Special user 531 Posts |
I once read an interesting time travel theory that demonstrated the paradoxes. It involved robbing a bank today and then traveling back in time to yesterday to deposit the money you robbed in the safe. The money would compound indefinitely.
If you really think about it, it gets quite confusing. |
|||||||||
kihei kid Inner circle Dog House 1039 Posts |
Quote:
On 2004-01-26 18:03, jonesc2ii wrote: Sorry jonesc2ii! General relativity is a fundamental mathematical law that has been verified, the equation is 99.999999999999999999999 percent accurate (it is essentially fact). What does that mean? General relativity “proves” that time, matter, and space had a beginning. Which in turn means evolution could never had happened. There is a very good reason(s) while evolution is considered untrue to this day. Obviously here at the café we can’t get into that debate. Oh! By the way. Is time travel considered a thing of the past?
In loving memory of Hughie Thomasson 1952-2007.
You brought something beautiful to this world, you touched my heart, my soul and my life. You will be greatly missed. Until we meet again “my old friend”. |
|||||||||
Schaden Inner circle Purgatory 1253 Posts |
Quote:
On 2004-01-28 18:29, kihei kid wrote: Unless, someone went back in time and spit in the primorital ooze. If someone did that, we would be started before we are created. Lee |
|||||||||
glodmagic Special user USA 501 Posts |
OK I guess it's time for this. Here I am in National Geographic Magazine. When not performing magic, I "dabble" in Plasma Physics. This is the largest Manmade lightning ever created in the US.
http://hero-1.com/images/GLODnationalgeo.gif If I told you what happens when I experiment by passing a Helium-Cadmium laser thru the arc you guys would write me off.
Remember ANY of your posts here can be Googled by your customers and Clients. Just entering your name in Google can bring up your negative comments that stay for years!
|
|||||||||
Jason Wethington Special user Orlando, Fl 615 Posts |
I am confused. Why does the theory that matter time and space all had a beginning exclude the idea of evolution? I would think that it actually gives more steam to the argument FOR evolution.
I too am interested in the modern physicist take on the double slit experiment. Looking forward to the continuation of one of the better threads in a long time. For a look at a time machine caught on video go here: http://users.net1plus.com/bestshot/ Jason |
|||||||||
kihei kid Inner circle Dog House 1039 Posts |
Jason, evolution teaches us that the heavens and earth have always been in existence (it just “was”) and we evolved from that.
If there was a beginning to everything then that means someone or something outside of time and space (our 4 dimensional world) created it, this is in obvious contrast to evolution. As Steven Steele pointed out quantum physics has shown indications that there are 11 other dimensions beyond what we see.
In loving memory of Hughie Thomasson 1952-2007.
You brought something beautiful to this world, you touched my heart, my soul and my life. You will be greatly missed. Until we meet again “my old friend”. |
|||||||||
MacGyver Inner circle St. Louis, MO 1419 Posts |
???? Actually Evolution DOESN'T teach anything about Heavens and earth.
All evolution says is that random mutations occure and then over time the successful mutations get passed through the gene pool, so that over time a species changes. It has nothing to do with earth, god, heavens or the universe. Only biology. Glodmagic: Please tell |
|||||||||
kihei kid Inner circle Dog House 1039 Posts |
Quote:
On 2004-01-29 02:38, MacGyver wrote: My apologizes Macgyver, you are correct it does not teach us that. That was a less than desirable choice of words on my part. If I could travel back in time I would change my sentence! Among other things… now lets see what were last weeks lottery numbers? The point I was trying to make is ask anyone who agrees with the theory of evolution about the solar system and they will tell you (they have to) that it "just was" and "it has always been in existence". They cannot say other wise, because they would be admitting that there was a beginning to everything, hence creation. Fascinating thread we have going here only time will tell if it gets better.
In loving memory of Hughie Thomasson 1952-2007.
You brought something beautiful to this world, you touched my heart, my soul and my life. You will be greatly missed. Until we meet again “my old friend”. |
|||||||||
Christopher Special user 531 Posts |
What about the theory that the universe is cycical and is created and destroyed over and over?
|
|||||||||
jonesc2ii Loyal user Oxford, England 235 Posts |
Quote:
On 2004-01-28 18:29, kihei kid wrote: So science has proved that evolution doesn't occur? News to me and I'd like to know more if you would be so kind as to provide some links. BTW I'm not implying you're wrong, I've got my own queries regarding evolution and am genuinely interested in your statement.
www.ixyl.co.uk/forums - for when you fancy a debate or a quiet chat.
|
|||||||||
jonesc2ii Loyal user Oxford, England 235 Posts |
Quote:
On 2004-01-29 03:43, kihei kid wrote: Not so. I believe in creationism (I believe in many Gods though, not a Christian/other single God, creator of all existence, but that's another story) but I also believe that people and animals evolve over time. The process of evolution does not necessarily have to exclude a starting point, the big bang or a seven day contract.
www.ixyl.co.uk/forums - for when you fancy a debate or a quiet chat.
|
|||||||||
glodmagic Special user USA 501 Posts |
Time travel does not preclude evolution OR creation.
Remember ANY of your posts here can be Googled by your customers and Clients. Just entering your name in Google can bring up your negative comments that stay for years!
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts |
As it happens, the associated though usually undiscussed predicates for creation yield much larger questions such as:
Can we get a look at the work done the previous week? What does His wife think of the work? Of all of His kind, how does He rate? How could we tell one of His kind from another? I personally have no problem with a created universe, though find much lacking in our logical inferences about the created universe as a work. One of the better science fiction authors tried to open some discourse on this with his story "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag". Another writer tried about twenty years later with his story "Ubik" to get folks to consider what it might mean to live in an 'artificial' world. Even today, computational mathematicians are nibbling at the edge of this deep philosophical issue. Do we want to change our ontology? Do we want to open up our metaphysics? It becomes a civil matter here that we not criticize each other's beliefs.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Time Travel?? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |