Speed of Light

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ShoeshineBoy, Aug 9, 2003.

  1. #71     Aug 13, 2003
  2. Independent to the observer is the same thing as saying, "it depends on the observer."

    Perhaps you should have spent more time practicing reading comprehension and less time differentiating equations?
    #72     Aug 13, 2003
  3. I believe one of the more accurate measurements made was by using mirrors placed on the moon during the Apollo missions. A laser beam was shot at the moon and reflected back. The amount of time it took the light to return was used to calculate the speed of light to a high degree of accuracy.
    #73     Aug 13, 2003
  4. read again....most are saying that light is FASTER then previously thought so that laser test is flawed....My point isn't whether it is true or not, my point is that too often with Science we accept what they say along the same way we do with religion, then 20 years later, they say Oops..we were wrong...
    #74     Aug 13, 2003
  5. Well, I don't think of it so much as being "wrong" but moreso being in a state of constant flux. If you take the Greek civilization for example, they once divided the world into 4 basic elements -- fire, air, earth and water.

    This description of reality fit their everyday existence well. The sun was on fire, the seas were of water, anything solid was earth and of course the invisible substance that they breathed was air. This wasn't inherently "wrong," but it was incomplete.

    If you skip ahead a few thousand years, during the late 19'th century and early 20'th century, the atom was discovered and it was thought to be the fundamental basic structure from which all other structures were created. Then the Quantum Mechanics revolution showed that an atom is really composed of quarks and muons -- and any attempt to understand where they were at any moment in time or how fast they were traveling was impossible due to uncertainty theory.

    I'm only 26, and in the time between elementary school and college, things have been changed radically. I grew up thinking that there was a big bang, the universe was slowing its expansion and that it might contract in a big crunch billions of years later.

    Now, astronomers have found that the universe's expansion is actually accelerating! Also, they have found strong evidence that there are other universes beyond are own.

    I don't think there will ever be a universal theory to describe reality. The best that we can do is advance science to understand the world as we live in it today (quantum mechanics is necessary to advance computers, but it was not necessary for the Greeks to understand in their environment).

    The pursuit of any science is, at the most basic level, an attempt to understand the world around us and how it got to where it is. Perhaps 50-100 years from now they will discover that logic is incompatible with a greater theory of the universe.
    #75     Aug 13, 2003

  6. Never thought I'd say this but, Excellent Post Aphie!!
    What's evenmor amazing is that I never touched a computer until i was in college in the mid 80's....yesterday my daughter came home form kindergarten and was doing her homework which included naming all the functions on a computer desktop.....She already knows how to open and launch programs at home....despite the criticism we have of our education system here, just remember that an 8th grader today could educate Galileo.
    #76     Aug 13, 2003
  7. I agree with you that the qunatum gravity era (10 -34 seconds and earlier) may be up for grabs. But the Big Bang is not going away. You can call it whatever you want but an explosion did happen for many reasons:

    1. Actual measurements of the expansion rate based on the distance of the object. (No, it's not done with a laser gun.)
    2. The COBE experiments showing the uniform background radiation.
    3. The age of all stars and galaxies are all less than say 15 billion years.
    4. The chemical compositions of the stars and galaxies. (An older universe would lead to much higher heavy element build ups.)
    5. Radioactive decay of long lasting isotopes.

    I know you may not like the idea of an explosion but the reasons behind it are much deeper and more involved than just whan simple "laser measurments".
    #77     Aug 13, 2003
  8. And I don't mean to sound patronizing but the Big Bang is kind of like Newtonian Physics. Newtonian physics was not destroyed by Relativity nor was it shown to be wrong. In the same way, the Big Bang is not going to completely eliminated or shown to be false. There's just too much evidence...
    #78     Aug 13, 2003

  9. Amazing that we are able to tell the age of stars that are " light years away" and estimate they are 15 BILLION years old.....yet, right here on planet earth using carbon 14 and artifacts we can actually touch, we cannot tell how old the dinosaurs are and cannot tell if the shroud of turin dates back to Jesus or not....In the case of the shroud, your looking at about 2000 years...In the case of dinosaurs, there are some who feel they went extinct 65-100 million years ago and others who believe its only 20 million years ago......yet we are going to put a date on a star???? we conclude about other universes and a supposed 'expansion' because we see light radiating????? Im not saying its true or not...im saying....we don;t have a f-ing clue...but it is fun to ponder and debate.
    #79     Aug 13, 2003
  10. true, there's still a lot we don't know, but science is the only way to go. religious people don't have a clue.
    #80     Aug 13, 2003