Physics

[LiamOS]

A lesser purpose of this thread is to allow members to ask questions about physics which they need clarification on or want an explanation on.

In my time spent here, I've been told many a time how conventional science fails and falls short in areas. As such, I decided to make this thread. However, as there are many on the subject of Biology and its many branches, I felt one to address the issues in physics would be appropriate.
For the purposes of this thread, physics covers Nuclear Physics, Particle Physics, Astronomy, Cosmology, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics(QCD, QED...), Electromagnetism, Optics and Thermodynamics.
The conventional theories in each field will be taken, in the context of this thread, as the best explanation currently available:
The Big Bang, the Standard Model(Particle physics), etc.

Questions for debate:
-Other than that which we do not yet know(Higgs Boson, etc.), are there any significant shortcomings in the conventional physics of the day? If so, where and why?
-Some theories are based on underlying assumptions. Are any of these assumptions flawed or not necessarily true?

With our current knowledge of the universe from a physicists point of view, is it logical to infer than a deity is a necessity? Why or why not?

On a final note, this is a physics thread, so don't hold back on using mathematics as support for your hypotheses.

[LiamOS]

The Higgs Bosun is called the God particle because there is little doubt that both do not exist.

Would you care to support your assertion that there is "little doubt" that the Higgs boson does not exist?

[TheAtheist]

I quote from Wikipedia.
The Higgs boson is a hypothetical elementary particle that is predicted to exist by the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics.
Unquote.
"It is predicted to exist" does not mean it exists.
Any more than God is predicted to exist.

[Goat]

I quote from Wikipedia.
The Higgs boson is a hypothetical elementary particle that is predicted to exist by the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics.
Unquote.
"It is predicted to exist" does not mean it exists.
Any more than God is predicted to exist.

Well, no.. it is not predicted to exist the same way the God is predicted to exist.

It is based on a mathematical model that is based on the particles that HAVE been discovered. .. and extending the pattern.

It doesn't mean that it does exist (although recent indications from CERN did confirm some of the predicted particles)

The term the 'God Particle' is actually a journalistic concept, that was edited from the term 'The god damn particle' since it was so hard to try to detect.

The biggest difference between the 'God Particle" and 'God' is there a way to look for the 'God Particle' to see if the physics model is correct (or not)

[LiamOS]

I quote from Wikipedia.
The Higgs boson is a hypothetical elementary particle that is predicted to exist by the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics.
Unquote.
"It is predicted to exist" does not mean it exists.
Any more than God is predicted to exist.

You asserted that there is "little doubt" that the Higgs boson does not exist. Note that you are making a positive assertion.
Thus far, your source has merely established that the particle's basis is purely theoretical, and I might add, predicted by a theory with phenomenal evidentiary support. This does not constitute evidence against its existence, and your apparent inability to note this is worrying.

Again, I'd like to request that you support your assertion, or qualify it as opinion/withdraw it.

[arian]

I myself see that our mind is 'instantaneous', as soon as we think it, we are there, what do you think?

The ability of imaginary travel does not inform on how things can go for effective space travels.

Thank you spoirier for your response. I enjoy your posts very much.

To your point above, I would say it depends on which part we consider space travel? What is the difference in taking our entire body on this trip, or just our mind?
Have we not gone to the moon and back a hundred times before we actually set foot on it?
Each imaginary trip was made quickly and safely from the comfort of our homes, or some office at NASA, or wherever the scientists working on the project were at the time. It was this added baggage; it was trying to take this physical body and the brain with it that created the problems.
First few imaginary trips were deadly to this physical body; we need to take enough oxygen for the body, need heavy boots so the body wouldnt just float off into space, oh yea, its cold up there so we need a nice strong heated space suit to protect that delicate flesh from the extremes, we also need to train the brain to accept extreme G forces created by the rocket trip, and to overcome the physical minds realization that we are no longer in Kansas anymore, heck, not even on earth! and so on.

Is our definition of 'imaginary' the same?

Imagination
1. ability to visualize: the ability to form images and ideas in the mind, especially of things never seen or never experienced directly
2. creative part of the mind: the part of the mind where ideas, thoughts, and images are formed
3. resourcefulness: the ability to think of ways of dealing with difficulties or problems
4. creative act: an act of creating a semblance of reality, especially in literature
(Microsoft Encarta)

We tend to place little value on imagination, yet without it we would never have gone to the moon. How is it that we can form images and ideas in our mind, especially of things never seen or never experienced directly? We never been to the moon, yet we imagined that we 'could', and our physical mind was convinced of it. Taking along the body was the challenge.

How many places has our spouse asked us to go and after some thought, we decided and believed that it would be boring and not go?

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
NKJV

Imagination is expressed in 'faith'. Once we believe it, it is good enough evidence of things not yet seen, like walking on the moon. It is like 'being there' without physically being there.
It still takes mind-work and effort.

The spiritual mind is powerful and willing for many tasks, but the body is weak, and takes it time to catch up with our spirit.

According to Relativity theory, the travel of a beam of light is instantaneous relatively to itself.

Instantaneous relatively to itself, I don't understand? If I was sitting on a chair on a sidewalk escalator at the airport, it would still take 'time' for me to get from one place to another, no? If the escalator went three miles per hour, and I got off the chair and walked another three miles per hour, I would be traveling double the speed of the escalator, right?

I believe that light has no speed it is 'instantaneous' to itself and to us, just like how I understand the theory of Relativity claims it to be. I dont believe we can slow it down in some frozen salt solution, for if we did, then once we melted that solution, light should just take off from there at full speed again??

In other words, a traveler that would (nearly) follow a beam of light to another place in the universe, would perceive this trip as (nearly) instantaneous, though he does not going faster than light. If he does this an then comes back, he will feel having made a short trip, however many years would have passed on Earth meanwhile.

Yes, I agree that if a traveler would (nearly) follow a beam of light would feel having made a short trip.

The speed of light is assumed to be 299,792,458 meters per second, so nearly would be what, 299 million meters per second? If we achieved that, couldnt we get a small rocket in the spacecraft and accelerate ourselves to reach the speed of light and even pass it?

These are the paradoxes created with the idea that light has speed, like the situations in which it may seem that matter, energy, or information travels at speeds greater than c.
All ideas of travel associated to 'light' go beyond the laws of physics because it reaches 'infinity'. The Lorentz factor describes this, as v reaches the (assumed) speed of light, it reaches infinity. Anything that can be perceived to reach infinity, has to be instantaneous, otherwise it would never reach it.

After analyzing all the evidence I have come across on the speed of light, I truly, without a doubt believe that light has no speed, but is instantaneous. If light had speed, then eventually all our ocean floors would be lit up, especially after billions of years. The experiments on slowing or stopping light are lies to keep the Big-bang-Evolution theories alive.

I know that the EPR paradox suggests there may be something not strictly local, deep in the spiritual realities. However the precise meaning and range of consequences of this is not clear. Despite this paradox, the laws of physics don't provide any means to effectively send information faster than light, and even explicitly describe the "reason" of this impossibility, by rejecting the concept of simultaneity altogether: as it takes minutes for the light to go between Earth and Mars, the events that "happened on Mars in the last minute" that we did not yet get signals about, are not really past events yet, so to speak. Therefore, any idea that disembodied minds may break this limit of the speed of light and thus make trips that some physically acceptable frame of reference would describe as a travel into the past, remains highly speculative, as long as no experience supports it.

Spread some of your old pictures on your table, and you will see how fast you can visit the past. An old memory stick with all my old pictures and letters took me back decades, all with the exact date and even time on them.

Your Mars analogy does not make sense to me, because if I was traveling to Mars, and it took me months to get there, I would know that things are happening there as Im traveling. Im aware of time, or that distinguishing events are happening simultaneously everywhere. I could send a camera on Mars first, and record events so when I get there, I can see what happened while I was traveling.

The MIND is not bound by the laws of physics, just as God our Creator is not bound by what WE think or believe.

And in general relativity, the very definition of what makes it impossible for objects to go back after crossing the horizon of a black hole, is that a way back would have to go faster than light.

Shining a beam of light in some frozen sodium solution will not slow light down, only block the light until it is completely blocked. I can do that easily at night with a light bulb in my bedroom; Take a .. oh lets say 40W bulb and turn it on, it lights the whole room.
Now place a paper bag over it, and I have blocked some of the light, right? Now tell me, did the light slow down? Of course not.
Now keep putting paper bag after paper bag over the light and before you know it, you can barely see the wall of my room. Does that mean that I slowed the light down? Again, of course not. I see the light on my wall, but it is very dim, but inside the bag, the same light is very bright. Now if light had speed, then yes, I slowed light down, and if I waited for a while, the room should eventually get brighter as the light is slowly passing through the medium I created, and we KNOW that is sci-fi fantasy. We can block the light as I showed till it is completely blocked, and we have no light.

Our physical eyes cannot see the Spiritual reality, so God created light like the sun to help us see. Turn off all the lights, and what happens? Everything disappears, right? But we know and believe that everything is still there, only our eyes cant see it.
So again;
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
NKJV

And anyway, what scientific magazines usually don't tell you for fear of disappointing the cherished sensationalistic fantasies that help them sell more paper, is that there is hardly any mystery of what happens beyond the horizon of a black hole. Where space is, it follows the equations. Until it reaches its end. If I don't mistake (I understand some but not well all existing knowledge on black holes), only the last infinitesimal fraction of time before the destructive end, escapes description and prediction by current theories. Thus anyway, the question of what happens there in these last infinitesimal fractions of time, is hardly more mysterious than the question of how particles interact in every such infinitesimal fraction of time in the "normal conditions" anywhere.
And ideas that black holes may behave as a short way to some other region of space-time, are more inspired by Star Trek than by what the equations of General Relativity really say.

Yes I agree, it is best to stay with what is shown by General Relativity, and keep Sci-fi like Big bangs as common as lightnings over the sea, black-holes, speed of light and other Creator God denying theories, assumptions and hypothesis in the sci-fi realm and out of science. The black-hole hypothesis were created by sci-fi to keep the pin-sized universe just sitting there in a point in space before space was even created alive.

If light had speed, ... and as claimed that light has been slowed down to 30mph

Confusions should be avoided between on the one hand the universal constant c that is the ultimate speed limit of objects and information transfer according to relativity, and just happens to coincide with the speed of light in the void; on the other hand, the speed at which some given wavelength of light happens to go in some given material.

Oh yes, just as the confusion over the Big-Bang theory and the theory of Evolution should not be confused to relate to each other? LOL

Waves? You mean like boat waves, radio waves, micro waves, infrared waves, visible light waves, ultraviolet waves, x-ray waves?

I seen this home-experiment where anyone can measure the speed of light. Now this is to (again) measure the speed of light, right?

You take a plate and place chocolate kisses about an inch apart in a straight line, place the plate in a non-rotating microwave oven, turn it on for a few seconds until the chocolate just starts to melt.
Remove and you will see that every other chocolate kisses started to melt, while the rest remained almost in tacked. Take the measurement between the melted chocolates, and calculate with the formula given, and you have just measured the Speed of Light!

Now if light waves are the same as micro waves, what if I may ask is the formula to measure the speed of light with a boat creating waves lets say, going 40 mph? Im sure we can come up with a formula, right? Matter of fact, we can create a formula to measure the speed of light by timing me take a sip of my coffee and placing the cup back down again.

Also, if I could create extremely high radio waves, will it start shining as light?

Have vibrations been sensed in light? Can we create some given wavelength of light by some vibrations?

Which light is slower and which one is faster in a vacuum, red, blue, white, red laser, green laser, which one?

if in the billions of years that beam of starlight passed through some gasses that might have slowed it down to a walking speed,

Any significant slow down of light in some regions would easily be detected by the lens effects it would produce. And, well, such important decreases of the speed of light only happen in special conditions that cannot be found in interstellar space.

It is amazing to me how science knows exactly what happened in our universe within in the past 13.75 billion years of its said existance, yet cannot understand that laws must have a Law Giver, that creation (man made or otherwise) has to have a Creator?? LOL

I used to play with lens effects, and I know sci-fi scientists can too. If I can get what I want out of these different effects, then so can they easily.
After the Big-bang, the gasses that formed all the suns, the planets, the galaxies and so on never existed? Are they sure that those conditions that might have slowed light down were never present, even for a short time in the past billions and billions of years? Is this a hypothesis, a theory, or known fact as the Big-Bang is said to be?

You seem to put a 'speed-limit' on even our thoughts, ...because you have learned (indoctrinated) that light has speed.

My belief is not based on what professors say, but on what the laws of physics say and what this suggests.

Good, that is how I have learned the truth about God, what I have observed in life, and what the Bible says, not what my parents, the Ministers, Preachers or the Pope says. I always question what I read even in the Bible, because I realize that all those years of indoctrination from them Ministers and all those different Christian Religions have deeply influenced my perception. I used to think I was a Theist, and that Bible God was some Devine being with a name like Jehovah. You know, just another one of those Theistic gods, only my was stronger, truer, more powerful than the others. LOL

Professors have been indoctrinated for their teachings (the choices of which theories they teach) by the experimenters' confirmation reports, who have been indoctrinated by the experimental results they obtained.

See, that is what I am talking about. If the Experimenters have been indoctrinated that light has a speed, and that we came about by a big-bang, then the conformation report will without a doubt have some agreeable light-speed in it whether light has speed or not. At one time, hundreds of years ago when they first came up with the idea of light-speed, the calculations were a lot slower than what we have today, am I right?
Also, who cares what number we attribute to this imaginary speed of light? It is the number that is used as a standard, no matter if light has speed or not.

INDOCTRINATE
cause to believe something: to teach somebody a belief, doctrine, or ideology thoroughly and systematically, especially with the goal of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions
Microsoft Encarta

The results of their experiments have themselves been indoctrinated by the behavior of the physical systems, which were themselves indoctrinated by God. But who indoctrinated God?

The behavior of the physical system does not discourage independent thought, they are to be accepted as fact without the influence of someones indoctrination. Creation is what it was made to be and follows the laws of physics no matter what ones beliefs are. As I said, you have been indoctrinated by Science Fiction; its hard not to be since most of todays scientists dream of nothing more than to disprove the existence of God from the minds of the population. It is tied together with the One World Dominating Order that uses indoctrination on the general public to control them. Just like going to the army, the youth must be brainwashed into believing that the orders given are always right, even if it is to kill your own family.

Now just think, how will the influence of this harsh indoctrination effect those young men and women once they come back from serving 2 to 8 years in the armed forces and go off to finish College? See what I mean?

You can also read more comments on this by another author.

Thank you, but the article itself is heavily influenced by indoctrination. Believers dont have any misconceptions about true science, it is these (sci-fi) scientists who have great deal of misconceptions of what they understand a Believer is.

I am not what you consider Christian by todays definition, for as you know todays Christians are theists, believing in many gods, or a greater God from amongst them who is more powerful than the others. I have always admired true science and have great respect for those scientists, almost as much as I love God who has revealed Himself to me through life, the Bible and science. Science reveals more and more of Gods handy work and His awesome power.

Maybe if you understood a little more about Christianity, you would see what I mean:
After about 325AD, a Gentile pagan version of the Followers of Christ arose, and they named themselves Christian. This Pagan Gentile superpower Christian Church kept their old gods and redefined Bible God through their man-made doctrines so it would not conflict with the rest of their theistic gods. God of the Bible was now redefined as a Deity, which is in great conflict with the Old Testament teachings. Now this new Power hungry Pagan Church rose up claiming to bear the sword in Jesus name, and nothing seemed to get in their way. Those that opposed their priests or Popes and their doctrines with true Biblical teachings were tortured and burnt as heretics tied to a stake, and those that worshipped any other gods but theirs, were enslaved or died by their swords. They have turned Jesus into one of their gods, and made Mary the Mother of all gods. You want something, you go through Mary.

There is also a perverted version of science, and if you deny this, you are not being very honest. I did not created the misconceptions of science, but those scientists who so obviously hate God have, and as you said, those that are too eager to sell them Science Magazines. I would include books, documentaries, dinosaur museums, huge grants on false pretenses to fund dangerous and harmful wicked plans upon humanity.

I don't put a speed-limit on our thought. I was already clear : I just don't know and I see no clear argument in either way, so I don't give myself the right to pretend to know whether the mind can go faster than light or not, when the truth is that I have no way to decide that question in the current state of science.

Why limit yourself what has already been established in science books? Your smart, science is done mostly in the mind, especially about our thought, so set your mind free from all them indoctrinations and think for yourself. I do, and traveled way beyond the universe, into the Creators Spiritual realm. When I walk in the spirit, all is revealed to me, things are so clear.

What is your definition of "indoctrination": does it consist in pretending to know something (e.g. that the mind must surely be able to go faster than light), or in just admitting that we currently have no way to decide such a question, when this is the case ?

As I stated above, indoctrination is; teaching somebody a belief, doctrine, or ideology thoroughly and systematically, especially with the goal of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions.

I dont pretend, either I know it, or I dont. Now I never said I know it all but God does and reveals to me as much as I can handle. My cup runneth over as is. I must admit that as unworthy of a rebel that I am, I see and understand things that most people dont.

I see the indoctrination in Christianity which caused it to become anything but Christ-like, and I see it in todays interpretation of science too. Both are in a very sad condition ruled by misrepresentations and lies. The truth is very, very distorted. With this, the belief in Creator God and Science are set against each other, when in actuality should be complementing each other. Neither one is true, all led by the whim of greedy men set out on destruction, who in turn are led by Satan and his version of one World Order.

Give me any distance, and I can be there and back with my mind as soon as you have defined that distance. I have traveled way beyond black holes, ... I have 'seen' (as in understood) with my mind 'nothing', and can define it through my physical senses, and was able to make the trip safely and 'instantaneously'.

Very good. In this case, just tell us the respective numbers and main characteristics of the main planets of the nearest 10 stellar systems from here, and then we'll be able to check in the next few decades (for example with the James Webb Space Telescope now in construction) whether your perceptions were correct.

OK, as soon as I read it, I was there with you at the main planets of the nearest 10 stellar systems just as you described it, see I told you. I have traveled with Star Trek too in my younger days.
Now let me ask you, are you sure that all 10 of the nearest stellar systems have planets?
How do you know, have you been there?
What influences you to ask such questions when the James Webb Space Telescope is not even finished yet?
Have you been making some out of body trips to these distant places?

The Bible has record of man ascending to Heaven and recorded seeing Heavenly Angels and Creatures, along with a message to mankind, and warnings of things to come, of which many has been fulfilled. What would benefit man by the information of the respective numbers and main characteristics of the main planets of the nearest 10 stellar systems?

How about solving the worlds energy crisis?
Or cure world hunger so little black girls wouldnt be eaten by vultures before they reach the food tents?
How about world peace, because God has already showed me the answer to these!

My statement was: Give me any distance, and I can be there and back with my mind as soon as you have defined that distance. If you can think of it and define it I can be there and back with my mind as soon as you define it. I can think of my old-country, and the house we lived in, and in my mind I am there. Not in the present, but in the past, 40 some years in the past and everything is so real that I start to shiver.

How do you see and understand the human psyche, as a form of physical-energy (please forgive the crudeness of my questions, I had very little schooling), or something 'beyond' the physical limitations, thus not under the 'laws of physics'?

I see the laws of physics, and especially the thermodynamic time arrow, as emerging from the properties of universal conciousness. In particular, time with its irreversibility, is a fundamentally metaphysical necessity (unlike the mathematical expression of time in the laws of physics where it may as well be replaced by a reversible space dimension). For more details, just visit my metaphysics page I linked above, containing my presentation of quantum physics.

I will gladly look at that my friend.
By your above statement you believe time is irreversible, right? Yet I just gave you an example where I went 40 some years back in time, and even felt the horror.

With God, there are no perceptions, or illusions like the road ahead of us seeming to come to a point, but all things are as they are. No time as we now understand it, for there is no account needed for past actions, the illusion of time (past, future) is for us, and only for now in this present limited physical realm, just as sun light is to help us see things. Just because we cannot see things in the dark, does not mean it is not there.
The reason we have time is because there was a separation from God, and now we have to find our way back to Him.
In a short while, the End will come, that is the end of time and the end of the idea that there is no Creator God, and then we all enter into Eternity where well see things as they really are, without the need for sunlight. God has prepared new bodies for us with far greater perception, so we may enjoy that New Creation.

In Eternity there is only moments, which are kept as they happened. All moments will be at our disposal as in a giant warehouse.
We get a taste of that even now with our mind, in our memory, only with a very limited access, because of our limitations created by sin. Any more literal (as you asked me to do above) access to other moments are governed by God, and is guarded by a Flaming Sword which is the Word of God. He will decide who, where and what we can see, which is also limited by our present faith.

Look what has been revealed to us just in the past one hundred years, how knowledge has increased? So I ask you, where do we stand with all this knowledge, and where or how far will we take greater knowledge?

All we need to do is look at where our so-far accumulated knowledge has brought us so far;

We have created more powerful bombs than this earth could handle, enough to blow the world up (from what I can understand) at least five times over.

We have the ability to grow more crops in the US alone, to feed the whole world five times over, and yet one-third of the world is staving?? Sending some corn-meal to the starving dying millions and feeling all proud about it is like the WWII Nazis bragging how much bread in a day they supply for all the Jews in the concentration camps.

We have learned to capture the energy from the sun, from water and many other safe resources, yet we have an ENERGY CHRISIS???
The energy we chose to use instead, is so dangerous that our very souls tremble with every earthquake (Nuclear Power plants) , and the other (oil) is polluting the entire planet and its waters, and killing us and our children.

We, now more then ever have the ability to travel quickly, safely and comfortably over great distances, yet we either dont have the time, or the money to do it. We visited more in the horse and buggy days than now. Why?

We have computers to help us increase knowledge, run our factories, CNC Machines to machine precision parts. Home computers are being utilized more and more for games like Grand Theft Auto, demonic music, pornography, and yes, Facebook where the whole world uses up their little time to show off and gossip. Oh what a One World we have become, all because of indoctrination.

Medical breakthroughs, oh yes, we can abort millions of healthy babies in almost no time at all, quickly, safely LOL. Adults are not spared either, those that cant put in the 10 hour, 6-7 day work week are slowly and surely being exterminated.

So tell me, do you still want to know the respective numbers and main characteristics of the main planets of the nearest 10 stellar systems? Will that stop our Leaders from giving machineguns to Muslim children in Africa to murder their Christian brothers? Will it stop them from driving millions of families from their homes into the dry dead desert with no food or water?
Yes, cause and effect, if we cause destruction the effects are pain and suffering, .. duh, wont you agree?

[spoirier]

Sorry but I disagree with roughly everything you wrote. And you wrote too much for me to answer everything. So I'll only answer a few points, which does not mean any agreement on the points I will not address.

Imagination has an essential role in science. No scientist denies this, only religious people making up false accusations against science, pretend that mainstream science suffers of a lack of imagination. Well on the other hand I also observe a lack of imagination but not for this. I see a lack of imagination (lack of innovation) in the teaching of science at the undergraduate level. I understand that this problem may contribute to the public prejudice accusing science of lacking imagination. However, beyond this I think there is not such problem in the way scientific research is processed by professional scientists in their respective fields.

However, it is true that science is not the same as imagination. Because imagination alone does not suffice to bring knowledge. Imagination alone can only produce many imaginable ideas; but the scientific method is necessary to select, among all what might be imagined, the few possibilities that can be the correct ones, that fit the outside reality. Imagination without scientific method can only lead you to imaginary universes that have no chance to have anything to do with how things effectively work in our own universe.

I was trying to explain this difference by asking you about planets in the nearest star systems. Strangely you returned the question to me, thus showing your failure to get what I meant by this question. You were the one claiming for the "reality" of imaginary trips, not I, so it was up to you to deal with the question, and what remains of this reality if you can't answer it.

If the escalator went three miles per hour, and I got off the chair and walked another three miles per hour, I would be traveling double the speed of the escalator, right?

Wrong. 3 mph + 3 mph = 5.999999999999999879927 mph.

The speed of light is assumed to be 299,792,458 meters per second, so nearly would be what, 299 million meters per second? If we achieved that, couldnt we get a small rocket in the spacecraft and accelerate ourselves to reach the speed of light and even pass it?

No, for the same reason.

All ideas of travel associated to 'light' go beyond the laws of physics because it reaches 'infinity'.

Ideas, in themselves, including the understanding of the laws of physics themselves, do not go beyond the laws of physics because they are of another nature which cannot be compared with the laws of physics to make any sense whether they go beyond or not. The word "travel" refers to the question whether something can physically occur or not. It's an idea about an effective physical possibility. Such an idea can be either true or false, according to whether it fits the laws of physics or not. In any case it does not go beyond these laws, because such a comparison would make no sense.

The experiments on slowing or stopping light are lies to keep the Big-bang-Evolution theories alive.

Experiments are real things, they cannot lie.

You just did not pay attention what I was trying to explain when I told about Mars.

The mind has a free imagination that does not depend on the laws of physics, because the nature of the imagination is of a different order, but this says nothing about the possibilities for out-of-body explorations to break any property that can be found in the laws of physics, such as the light speed limit. There is no problem for imaginary points or figures to cross imaginary distances faster than an imaginary light speed in an imaginary figure that may be a picture of our universe, but this says nothing about the possibility for the mind going outside the body, to travel faster than light the physical distances of our physical universe.

Now if light had speed, then yes, I slowed light down, and if I waited for a while, the room should eventually get brighter as the light is slowly passing through the medium I created

No and no.

it is best to stay with what is shown by General Relativity, and keep Sci-fi like Big bangs as common as lightnings over the sea, black-holes, speed of light and other Creator God denying theories,

The Big bang, relativity theory (speed of light) and black holes, are true established science. I only criticized that the idea that black holes could serve as a way to reach some other place, which (I think) is only the fruit of the imagination of (or propagation by) unserious science popularization authors, that hardly any professional scientist takes seriously. Also any idea of a multiplicity of big bangs is highly speculative and should not be confused with the reliability of established science.

There is no such error from the part of scientists. It's only the public's passion for "free imagination" and fantasies away from serious science, that makes sci-fi ideas popular and spread a distorted image of science, as mixed with non-scientific ideas (speculations that may have a little chance to become verified someday, but there is already so much work explaining the established knowledge to the public, that additional speculations only blurr the picture). Please don't blame scientists for how the non-scientific public imagination likes to go away from scientific rigor.

Which light is slower and which one is faster in a vacuum, red, blue, white, red laser, green laser, which one?

In a vacuum, all wavelengths of light, from radio waves to gamma rays, go at exactly the same speed.

but those scientists who so obviously hate God have, and as you said, those that are too eager to sell them Science Magazines

I did not say this. I criticized the distortions by some journalists and some unserious popularization autors that look for easy money by selling what some public likes to read. Some part of the public likes to read such sci-fi when they don't like to read the correct information from serious scientists which would seem "boring" to them.
Outside this public image problem, most of mainstream science does not have these defects. Mainstream scientists usually just follow the evidence in their research, not any hatred of God.

Why limit yourself what has already been established in science books?

Because the focus on the established knowledge excluding any speculative ideas, means limiting one's exploration of ideas to less than a mere 100,000 years of intensive learning. How lazy !!!

(more replies later)

[Goat]

Since we were talking about the Higgs

[arian]

Sorry but I disagree with roughly everything you wrote. And you wrote too much for me to answer everything. So I'll only answer a few points, which does not mean any agreement on the points I will not address.

You disagree with roughly everything I wrote? Doesnt that tell us something?

Imagination has an essential role in science. No scientist denies this, only religious people making up false accusations against science, pretend that mainstream science suffers of a lack of imagination.

I never said that mainstream science suffers of a lack of imagination!
Do you mean religious as in Christianity, or in general? You know, because you seem very religious yourself in your scientific beliefs.

Well on the other hand I also observe a lack of imagination but not for this. I see a lack of imagination (lack of innovation) in the teaching of science at the undergraduate level. I understand that this problem may contribute to the public prejudice accusing science of lacking imagination. However, beyond this I think there is not such problem in the way scientific research is processed by professional scientists in their respective fields.

It is not their imagination thats lacking, nor their biases.

However, it is true that science is not the same as imagination. Because imagination alone does not suffice to bring knowledge. Imagination alone can only produce many imaginable ideas; but the scientific method is necessary to select, among all what might be imagined, the few possibilities that can be the correct ones, that fit the outside reality. Imagination without scientific method can only lead you to imaginary universes that have no chance to have anything to do with how things effectively work in our own universe.

I thought science was mostly imagination followed up by experiments? Or did Einstein stumble across some atoms which in turn started his imagination rolling?

I also thought that imagination brings forth knowledge and we used scientific experiments and mathematic calculations to reassure our imagination that our figures are correct? It also helps us to imagine more and deeper by doing these calculations and experiments. The mind starts a project, and the mind is the one that decides on the result of the project, thus from beginning to end it is the mind/imagination.

As for the Created universe, no matter what theory our mind comes up with, it will remain what it was created to be, a place for humans who were created in Gods image to grow in, to come back to the knowledge of God.
By making things on our own (planes, trains and automobiles) and compare it to the creations that are already here in this universe, the wisdom and power of our Creator becomes more and more obvious. It is humbling, to say the least.

I was trying to explain this difference by asking you about planets in the nearest star systems. Strangely you returned the question to me, thus showing your failure to get what I meant by this question. You were the one claiming for the "reality" of imaginary trips, not I, so it was up to you to deal with the question, and what remains of this reality if you can't answer it.

Did we go to the moon and back at least a hundred times before man ever set foot on it or not?
Or, did someone happen to stumble on the moon and then said to himself; Hey, I got an idea, a thought occurred to me; how about we go to the moon?
Another words did reality and knowledge come first, or did our imagination? Surely it was our imagination first, then we did some calculations in our head, then put it on paper which helped increased our knowledge of the trip, perfected it as best as we could and then finally we took our bodies up there too.

Yes, I said I can go with my mind wherever you can, and have done it as promised. Have you physically gone to the planets in the nearest star system? If you did, so could I, probably the same way you did, but that was not the question.

Now what you want is a miracle, and we have records of such travels in the Bible. Miracles happened many times in my life, and if that is what you want to talk about, lets talk about miracles. My friend, I am a walking miracle. But miracles are done by faith, not by the will of the human mind. I will not get into that because I see that your understanding of God is what you received through indoctrination, so first things first.

If the escalator went three miles per hour, and I got off the chair and walked another three miles per hour, I would be traveling double the speed of the escalator, right?

Wrong. 3 mph + 3 mph = 5.999999999999999879927 mph.

Again, a paradox is created because of the speed that is placed on light, right?

Can you please tell me how much energy would be required to propel something (any mass) to the speed of light?

The speed of light is assumed to be 299,792,458 meters per second, so nearly would be what, 299 million meters per second? If we achieved that, couldnt we get a small rocket in the spacecraft and accelerate ourselves to reach the speed of light and even pass it?

No, for the same reason.

Im sorry but I dont understand what Wikipedia is explaining here, and your brief comment is no better.

If a fly on a ship was flying at 3 miles per hour to the already 20 miles per hour speed of the ship, the actual speed the fly is traveling relative to shore is 23 miles per hour, do I understand this correctly?

So if that same fly was traveling in a spaceship at the (assumed) speed of light, and then took off in the same direction the ship was traveling and flew an additional 3 miles per hour, then relative to something standing still in space, the fly would exceed the speed of light, no?

I dont understand why they would consider traveling relative to traveling itself? If I was traveling on a train, it does not matter if I was sitting, standing or sleeping, I would still be traveling, right? Just ask people getting off the plane after a 16 hour flight to the Philippines if they felt as if the trip was instantaneous or not?

Now how fast would I be traveling? It sure cannot be less then the speed the train Im on was traveling. Not .00000001 mph less than the speed of the train, unless, unless we place a limit on light, then all kinds of problems appear.

If a spaceship was traveling 299,792,458 meters per second, those scientists that believe that is the speed of light would have to admit that spaceship there is traveling at the speed of light right?

Now why would science come up with a statement like; Light relative to itself is instantaneous?

Or what you said, that someone traveling at near the speed of light (I dont know why you cannot say AT the speed of light?) time would have slowed down, while on earth many years would have passed?

Lets see now, why do they say that: Light relative to itself is instantaneous.?
Would the same statement work if we switched light with train?

Does the meaning of instantaneous mean standing still? Not in mathematics, for there instantaneous moves by infinitesimally small increments, which (far as I understand) means that the faster you go, the slower you go???? You know, like when we tell our kids: Get over here this instant! so if they take baby steps, we should not get upset, for according to mathematics, that is instant, so they are actually doing what we asked them to do. right OK.

The statement; Light relative to itself is instantaneous. Was made because as I said light IS instant.
And if light is instant, it can reach infinity as soon as it is turned on.

To propel something to reach infinity, you need infinite power/energy.
I bet Einstein knew that the two hundred year old speed limit of light at 299,792,458 meters per second was not enough for his formula, so he squared c as in E=MC^2

But if we man can limit light to a set speed like 299,792,458 meters per second, hey, maybe we can someday achieve this and have reached physical infinity, which in turn makes us eternal!

According to your big-bang facts (not even a theory anymore), the ends of the universe must be expanding far greater than your speed of light which is 299,792,458 meters per second. But, if entire galaxies can move that fast, lets say 2-3 times the speed of light, than why cant a ship?

If it takes all the power found in the universe to propel a ship to the speed of light (Lorentz Factor), then what energy is expanding entire galaxies (the assumed) 2, 3, 5, 10 times the speed of light?

Hey, .. maybe the energy is coming from quasars created from the exploding black holes that are connected to other universes, sucking the energy from them where they are returning to pin-sized again, all the while our galaxy is expanding?

Can you point out some scientific article, or news-clip where it shows that Now we have found the speed for instantaneous, it is exactly 299,792,458 meters per second!

Thanks
Will answer the rest of your post later Gods willing.

[arian]

Sorry but I disagree with roughly everything you wrote. And you wrote too much for me to answer everything. So I'll only answer a few points, which does not mean any agreement on the points I will not address.

Imagination has an essential role in science. No scientist denies this, only religious people making up false accusations against science, pretend that mainstream science suffers of a lack of imagination. Well on the other hand I also observe a lack of imagination but not for this. I see a lack of imagination (lack of innovation) in the teaching of science at the undergraduate level. I understand that this problem may contribute to the public prejudice accusing science of lacking imagination. However, beyond this I think there is not such problem in the way scientific research is processed by professional scientists in their respective fields.

However, it is true that science is not the same as imagination. Because imagination alone does not suffice to bring knowledge. Imagination alone can only produce many imaginable ideas; but the scientific method is necessary to select, among all what might be imagined, the few possibilities that can be the correct ones, that fit the outside reality. Imagination without scientific method can only lead you to imaginary universes that have no chance to have anything to do with how things effectively work in our own universe.

I was trying to explain this difference by asking you about planets in the nearest star systems. Strangely you returned the question to me, thus showing your failure to get what I meant by this question. You were the one claiming for the "reality" of imaginary trips, not I, so it was up to you to deal with the question, and what remains of this reality if you can't answer it.

Hello spoirier, I pray all is well with you, it has been a while so I hope you are still around?

You are correct, I did not answer your question on the "reality" of imaginary trips, and here is why.

First, what do you consider 'reality'? If you consider the physical/material universe as 'reality', then why is a ten mile stretch of road let's say 20 feet wide all the way down ahead of us 'seem' to come to a point?

Also, let's take some dark glasses and a ruler outside at noon and measure the diameter of the sun with our ruler, now what is the diameter we are getting, 10 - 12 inches, right? But we know that in 'reality' it has a diameter of about 1,392,684 km, about 109 times that of Earth, right?

So what is 'reality'? Do objects really 'shrink' with distance, or do they 'seem like' they do?

We can take a ruler (hypothetically) and measure the distance between the earth and the sun, we can take a ruler to measure the diameters of both the earth and the Sun, ... this what we call reality, measurable, right? I used to be able to differentiate between a .250 inch Dia dowel pin and a .252 Dia. just by looking at them on the table, so how can I be so off when I measure the sun?

Who defined and programmed my eyes and mind to see/tell distance by shrinking objects as they move away from me?

Thanks.

[JohnPaul]

As far as I know, myth-one, space is currently expanding faster than light. There's nothing weird 'bout that.

Oh, really? I asked this question when I was eight years old and have never found an answer. What is space expanding into?