benben
Active member
Source? Or can you elaborate?Light doesn't have a speed; it's instantaneous. What is known as c is the speed limit of atomic particles.
Source? Or can you elaborate?Light doesn't have a speed; it's instantaneous. What is known as c is the speed limit of atomic particles.
Nah, in fairness to RD that's not true Derf. People have been leaving TOL in droves for the last few years now, both right, left wingers and moderates. Sad to see as this was a once bustling and vibrant forum due in no small part to the founder's ideal that it would be open to all albeit with a self declared conservative bias. About ten years or so ago it was one of the most popular theology sites on the net when it was at its peak. A diverse mix of people from all over the religious and political spectrum where debate was encouraged including the heated variety. Unfortunately it all started going downhill when Knight wasn't so invested although he himself said he wasn't happy with how the forum was going. He even took blame himself for that although unfairly IMO. Unfortunately this place is barely a shadow of its former self as it now seems to be a place for conspiracy rubbish where even some of the old guard on the far right have had enough, those that are still here that is. RD isn't responsible for that. This forum just isn't anything as appealing as it once was is all.And you drive people away from TOL.
Hmm, not really. You kinda asked for that riposte, in fact you practically set yourself up for it.More extreme childishness on your part.
False, but not surprising that you would see it that way.Hmm, not really. You kinda asked for that riposte, in fact you practically set yourself up for it.
You were just smarting over it is all. It's not like you're above the same yourself and you did indeed ask for it. Heck, it's not like I'm Derf's biggest fan or yours considering so hey.False, but not surprising that you would see it that way.
Engineering electromagnetics imply this heavily. Still, Einstein kept the ether theory alive in relativity by assuming the waves were not point to point, and [that they] were photons which are massless and infinitely produced. Photons I think are waves of energy and not mass.Source? Or can you elaborate?
The speed of electricity [is] c and thought pretty much the same.Speed of light is fast but the speed of thought is faster.
Nah, in fairness to RD that's not true Derf. People have been leaving TOL in droves for the last few years now, both right, left wingers and moderates. Sad to see as this was a once bustling and vibrant forum due in no small part to the founder's ideal that it would be open to all albeit with a self declared conservative bias. About ten years or so ago it was one of the most popular theology sites on the net when it was at its peak. A diverse mix of people from all over the religious and political spectrum where debate was encouraged including the heated variety. Unfortunately it all started going downhill when Knight wasn't so invested although he himself said he wasn't happy with how the forum was going. He even took blame himself for that although unfairly IMO. Unfortunately this place is barely a shadow of its former self as it now seems to be a place for conspiracy rubbish where even some of the old guard on the far right have had enough, those that are still here that is. RD isn't responsible for that. This forum just isn't anything as appealing as it once was is all.
It's harmless rhetoric. Just like sticks and stones, but harmless rhetoric will never hurt me.A very good observation Arthur. What I have noticed on the Forum, even before it was updated to its current version, has been a consistent flaw in that was not discouraged and that had to do with the idea that "Smack" was acceptable, and even idealized. The lack of respect/civility is eventually what pushes people away.
There's harmful rhetoric, that can be done by people irl online, if you know what I mean, it's when people know each other like kids at school, they can inflict harmful rhetoric online that way, but it's really an extension of real life at that point, we can't practice harmful rhetoric here, no matter how 'disrespectful' or 'uncivil' you find it it's all harmless rhetoric.The other thing that I noticed was the incredible lack of many members to be able to concede that their data/position was wrong even in the most simple of arguments. It is difficult to have reasonable discussions on theology when people won't stay on point or admit flaws in their logic. It is just becomes exhausting instead of enjoyable, so people slowly leave to try to find better uses of their time.
I have what I think is an easy way to determine the one way speed of light, I would be interested in you thoughts.I've really enjoyed listening to the recent RSR programs on the speed of light. As a YEC the light-time travel problem is one that's fascinated and stumped me for years.
A while ago I read one of Lisle's books wherein he proposed the ASC (infinite one-way speed of light convention). I liked the idea, but something about it never felt right. After thinking through this again I've concluded that the one-way speed of light can't be infinite.
If the one-way speed of light in a given direction is truly instantaneous, then no time passes during which light traverses a given distance. To put it another way, the same light (i.e. photon) is in two places at once. Only God can be in multiple places at once, so the idea that a photon can also is a problem.
There's also a fascinating implication of a photon being in two places at once. When light is bounced off a mirror, the initial photon of light would pop into existence at the source AND be reflected off the mirror at exactly the same moment. Sounds cool, but again, none of this makes sense.
And there's another problem. The equation for speed is speed = distance / time. Therefore, a speed of infinity would require time to be 0 (infinity = distance / 0). But division by zero leads to absurd and clearly false expressions like 0=1.
To illustrate this, let's say that on a one-way trip, light travels 100,000 miles in an instant. Therefore infinity = 100,000 miles / 0. Multiply both sides of the equation by 0, and you get 0 miles = 100,000 miles. You can do this with any distance and will always get 0 = whatever distance you use.
Of course, we can get around these problems by saying that the one-way speed of light in one direction is some real number so fantastically large that it might as well be infinity. However, the idea of the speed of light being different in different directions seems counterintuitive, like the results of the double-slit experiment but much weirder. That alone isn't a reason to dismiss it, but it raises a number of even more difficult questions such as how light "knows" what direction it's going or whether it's being measured on the return trip.
Anyway, change my mind
No, light, of course, has a speed - no expert disputes this.Light doesn't have a speed; it's instantaneous. What is known as c is the speed limit of atomic particles.
No, light, of course, has a speed - no expert disputes this.
Just how subversive are you? Depending on reality rather than speculation? You must be very radical.When the sun comes up every morning I always see it 8 minutes later.
You hit snooze?When the sun comes up every morning I always see it 8 minutes later.
Now I know why you got banned so often.What can I say? I'm a light sleeper
The speed of bouncing atomics. Since photons only have energy, and no mass, they don't really travel but are point-to-point. There is no proof that light has a lag time.No, light, of course, has a speed - no expert disputes this.