Intelligent Design
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 17:04
VIEWED: 14833
PAGE 7 of 14
Atom- you're going to have to be a LOT more discursive! I get headaches just reading one sentence.
Time.... the past doesn't exist, the future doesn't exist, the moment when one paases to the other is infinitesimally small... therefore WE don't exist!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CHRISISALL:
No nonspiracy...
No at all. It is real science and it does work. I heard about the test runs while I was on the SSC project. But about a year.5 after the project was shut down I saw an article in Newsweek (If memory serves). And they had actually saved someone with it (and yes, the someone was a ranking politician). The article included a two page layout with good graphics to illustrate how it worked. Actually, I know quite a bit about the machine myself. And if you really want to hear it I tell you. But it doesn't really bear on ID (this group). Want proof?
http://www.hep.net/ssc/new/history/factsheet.html
Then click on Cancer Therapy. Of course, the full tech data is not there. But they do have a working machine. And it does work without fail.
Far out huh?
Check out the picts too - start from the home page, then the first link, then the last one "Archives". Enjoy.
Atomkey.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, as I understand it y'all weren't even allowed to mothball the facility so that it could be restarted in the future. It was just turn off the lights and leave. What a waste.
Fivver
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM:
ROFL - I haven't had someone call me discursive since yesterday!!! Point taken. Past = NOT exist, Future = NOT exist, We = NOT exist...
Thus = neither does this text.
CHRISISALL brings out the rambling on...
Atomkey.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fivver:
We had miles of tunnel built. In some sections and three story crane could stand... They dynamited every section to ensure someone else would try to pick up where we left off. Pretty sleazy.
We did have fun though. In the summer there were always TONS of crickets. We would get a bunch in a metal vat basket and lower them into liquid helium. They were instantly cryogenically frozen. Then we would throw them out on the hot concrete docks and a few minutes later they were hopping around all happy again. Kinda cruel, but fascinating to watch.
How do you know about the SSC?
Atomkey
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Erm the C in E=MC² is light through a vacuum, and always has been...
And the speed of light is a constant within a vacuum, baring interaction with gravity wells/matter etc:
Quote:
At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted:
The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.
This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by definition!
Quote:
Another assumption on the laws of physics made by the SI definition of the metre is that the theory of relativity is correct. It is a basic postulate of the theory of relativity that the speed of light is constant. This can be broken down into two parts:
The speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer.
The speed of light does not vary with time or place.
To state that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer is very counterintuitive. Some people even refuse to accept this as a logically consistent possibility, but in 1905 Einstein was able to show that it is perfectly consistent if you are prepared to give up assumptions about the absolute nature of space and time.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of
_light.html
The fact that the speed of light changes depending on medium was known before e=mc², and c refers to speed of light in a vacuum, NOT the speed of light...
Time is refered to as a change in state... It is tangible in a much as time is a state change... and extremly hard to explain without quantifying it by itself...
Time travel is perfectly possible, but one way only, if you accelerate a space craft to close to the speed of light its Tau drops closer and closer toward zero. This has the effect, due to special reletivity, of compressing subjective time, thereby making time (the state changes) occur at a slower rate on the ship than outside the ship.
Thus you can travel forward in time, you cannot, however, travel backwards (as far as current thinking allows).
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not really familiar with the SSC, but I do remember talk of it tho...
Sounded like an exciting project.
Guess we're stuck with CERN...
Well, as a Brit it makes me happy we're keeping Europe in the forefront...
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I meant conspiracy as in 'somebody' *coffFDA* was paid to close down a project that would have saved millions, even billions of dollars that would have ended up in the hands of drug companies...
Originally posted by Atomkey:
No at all. It is real science and it does work.
Sounds like a conspiracy to me. Finn, blast it, where are you? We need an inside word.
Con-nut Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen:
Dang...
"Einstein was able to show that it is perfectly consistent if you are PREPARED TO GIVE UP assumptions about the absolute nature of space and time."
Prepared to give up... Humm. 'Definitions are adopted according to the most ACCURATELY known measurement techniques of the day, and are constantly REVISED.' According to the web site you sent me to. They HAD TO DO that because E=MC^2 couldn't explain why energy and matter reactions were inconsistent when viewed from different frames of reference. Hince relative...
Constantly revised. I wasn't attempting to prove that E=MC^2 doesn't work. I was attempting to show that at one time they couldn't explain why - so it was determined (in order to reconcile certain difficulties) that everyone said the speed of light is constant, and this is what it is. Then everyone could go back to work.
I'm guessing that most people say photons have no mass. I don't agree. But that is my view. I think one of the things that compells me is that light is pulled into a black hole. Let's say that a photon DOES have mass. How does E=MC^2 work at the event horizon of a collapsed star?
As you said, baring interaction with gravity wells/matter etc... Now we are (were) talking about Intelligent Design. I postulated that all we know is based on where we are from. And if some sort of 'god' created the universe, then bringing up relativity should be in a universal sense when applied to ID for a conclusion either way. Not just limited to a vacuum. What if way out there somewhere somehow it is impossible to form a vacuum.
I don't think I ever heard anyone refer to time as a state change. When I think of states - I think of logic or sets, or sets of sets. I guess I look at time in a more metaphysical way. But I can accept any possibility.
I do have a question though, since you see well versed. If you were to slow a photon down to zero velocity what might it become to the naked eye? If a space ship went by at the speed of light (in a vacuum of course) I would see a infintesimal quick burst of light... right? And if I stop the ship, I see the ship - right? I'm not so clear on that one...
Atomkey.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME