Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Askot Bokbondeler]

i posted this earlier

here, have fun

i skimmed it and it doesn't seem to be very obtuse, though it's 5:30 am where i'm at and i don't feel like providing a tl;dr

[Sirus]

i posted this earlier

here, have fun

i skimmed it and it doesn't seem to be very obtuse, though it's 5:30 am where i'm at and i don't feel like providing a tl;dr

You a physics major or something? I can readily admit that I can't really make heads nor tails of it.

What I am seeing, however, are a whole lot of "maybe"s, "could"s, and "possibly"s, without much in the way of hard data.

[kaenneth]

The speed of light in a vacuum is constant.

If light traveled at 400 million meters per second instead of 300 million~ish, it would be because either meters got shorter, or seconds got longer.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

fine arts. there are some phrases i have to goggle as i go along, but i was surprised by how easily i'm being able to follow it

The speed of light in a vacuum is constant.

If light traveled at 400 million meters per second instead of 300 million~ish, it would be because either meters got shorter, or seconds got longer.

oh, thank you, i didn't know that. i guess this dude must be delusional or something. should somebody tell him that؟

[Sirus]

Calling him "delusional" might be a bit extreme

If his ideas are not backed by supporting evidence but he continues to push them, then that might be considered delusional. Otherwise, he's pushing an alternate hypothesis that, to my knowledge, has yet to be tested.

[MaximumZero]

OK, the same guy just said that it's used as a creationist argument.

I've asked him if he knows what a creationist is.

The variable-speed-of-light hypothesis is (or was) used as a creationist argument. Clearly, the speed of light used to be faster, and thus the universe (and Earth) is only about 6,000 years old rather than the 14 billion according to what we can see of the universe.

I don't make it up, I just report it :|

That's why Einstein didn't believed his own theory.

I doubt that. If he didn't believe it, he wouldn't have had it published. Furthermore (inb4 "Einstein was a(n) [insert religion]-ist!"):

The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive. However, I am also not a "Freethinker" in the usual sense of the word because I find that this is in the main an attitude nourished exclusively by an opposition against naive superstition. My feeling is insofar religious as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insufficiency of the human mind to understand deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as "laws of nature." It is this consciousness and humility I miss in the Free-thinker mentality.

From a letter to Beatrice F. in response to a question about whether he was a "free thinker", 17 December 1952

[Pyre]

On a somewhat related note to the current topic, I would like to submit anything Kent Hovind said, EVER.

[Evilsx]

On a somewhat related note to the current topic, I would like to submit anything Kent Hovind said, EVER.

...No words beside "Where dose he live so i can beat some sense into him"

[Sirus]

Last I heard, he lives in jail for tax evasion.
If you really wanna beat someone up, check out Andy Schlafly or Vox Day.

[Loud Whispers]

On a somewhat related note to the current topic, I would like to submit anything Kent Hovind said, EVER.

Not really. He isn't stupid; just very corrupt. He even managed to correctly describe evolution step by step to his audience (after then saying this proves evolution wrong admittedly(?)).
If you want real stupid, banana man.

[miauw62]

He said Jupiter rock.

[Loud Whispers]

He said Jupiter rock.

Tide goes in tide goes out is another example of smart people playing dumb people.

[Sheb]

Problem with physics is that theorical physics went well ahead of experimental physics. It worked great (look at the number of particle that were "discovered" by theory before being validated by experiment). But it's also mean that we have a lot of widely different hypothesis around that await testing. This seems to be one of them.

[Loud Whispers]

Problem with physics is that theorical physics went well ahead of experimental physics. It worked great (look at the number of particle that were "discovered" by theory before being validated by experiment). But it's also mean that we have a lot of widely different hypothesis around that await testing. This seems to be one of them.

This is a problem?

[Sheb]

Well not really I guess. But it does mean that we can't be condescending because a physicist's pet theroy ain't supported by experiment yet.