Evidence for God from Science

Would you care to read my posts?

1over137 wrote:Would you care to read my posts?

Special relativity implies that no energy, mass or information can travel with faster than light speed.

Well, I read that, and I responded, you have no logical response, to the response.

So again.

It is just completely illogical, for any mathematical formula, or any other postulate of any kind, to say that the speed of light is a universal maximum, unless, the theorist, has knowledge of everything in the universe. This is the ignorance of man, as this repeats, and repeats, and repeats. Again, if Edwin Hubbel, did not invite Einstein to Palomar, and show him the red shift, that DISPROVED EINSTEINS static universe, the static universe might still be taught.

That said, Hubbel might well be wrong, again 99.999 percent of all knowledge is 100 percent unknown, to any and or all humans.

How many times am I going to tell you that the Special Theory of Relativity does not say that the speed of light is a universal limit? By universal I suppose you mean 'for all things'.

You do not seem to be on this board to learn. Instead you bombard us with your thougths, with your theories.

1over137 wrote:How many times am I going to tell you that the Special Theory of Relativity does not say that the speed of light is a universal limit? By universal I suppose you mean 'for all things'.

You do not seem to be on this board to learn. Instead you bombard us with your thougths, with your theories.

First of all, it defines the absolute speed limit for the transfer of energy, matter and information. No object, however strong the forces acting upon it, can ever be accelerated to light speed. (Some reasons why that is so are given in the section E=mc2.)

Secondly, the speed of light c is a ubiquitous parameter in the equations of special relativity. If the relative speed v is small compared to c, so are the relativistic effects. With v close to c, the relativistic effects become prominent, but with speeds small compared to c, such as the speeds we encounter in everyday life, relativistic effects are almost unnoticeable.

http://www.einstein-online.info/element ... d_of_light

Relativity is what it is....!

http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/speed_of_light wrote:
First of all, it defines the absolute speed limit for the transfer of energy, matter and information. No object, however strong the forces acting upon it, can ever be accelerated to light speed. (Some reasons why that is so are given in the section E=mc2.)

Secondly, the speed of light c is a ubiquitous parameter in the equations of special relativity. If the relative speed v is small compared to c, so are the relativistic effects. With v close to c, the relativistic effects become prominent, but with speeds small compared to c, such as the speeds we encounter in everyday life, relativistic effects are almost unnoticeable.

Agreed.

1over137 wrote:

http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/speed_of_light wrote:
First of all, it defines the absolute speed limit for the transfer of energy, matter and information. No object, however strong the forces acting upon it, can ever be accelerated to light speed. (Some reasons why that is so are given in the section E=mc2.)

Secondly, the speed of light c is a ubiquitous parameter in the equations of special relativity. If the relative speed v is small compared to c, so are the relativistic effects. With v close to c, the relativistic effects become prominent, but with speeds small compared to c, such as the speeds we encounter in everyday life, relativistic effects are almost unnoticeable.

Agreed.

That is what the theory says, however. It is just completely illogical, for any mathematical formula, or any other postulate of any kind, to say that the speed of light is a universal maximum, unless, the theorist, has knowledge of everything in the universe. This is the ignorance of man, as this repeats, and repeats, and repeats. Again, if Edwin Hubbel, did not invite Einstein to Palomar, and show him the red shift, that DISPROVED EINSTEINS static universe, the static universe might still be taught.

There is just no sense, for anyone, to believe that Einstein, had knowledge of everything, and again his formulas are missing 96 percent of all matter.

TheQuestor wrote: It is just completely illogical, for any mathematical formula, or any other postulate of any kind, to say that the speed of light is a universal maximum, unless, the theorist, has knowledge of everything in the universe.

You are still being wrong saying universal maximum.
Perhaps we should also abandon conservation of energy since we do not have knowledge of everything in the universe. Maybe in some corner of the universe energy is not conserved?

TheQuestor wrote:This is the ignorance of man, as this repeats, and repeats, and repeats.

Read historians. Learn more about Einstein.

TheQuestor wrote:Again, if Edwin Hubble, did not invite Einstein to Palomar, and show him the red shift, that DISPROVED EINSTEINS static universe, the static universe might still be taught.

You think that if Einstein read a paper published by Hubble about his observations static universe would be still taught?
Science is a process. Theories suggested and with more knowledge from experiments and observations modified or abandonded.

TheQuestor wrote:There is just no sense, for anyone, to believe that Einstein, had knowledge of everything,

Who believes that?

TheQuestor wrote: and again his formulas are missing 96 percent of all matter.

In what sense his formulas are missing 96 percent of all matter? And are you sure with the number 96 for matter?

1over137 wrote:

TheQuestor wrote: It is just completely illogical, for any mathematical formula, or any other postulate of any kind, to say that the speed of light is a universal maximum, unless, the theorist, has knowledge of everything in the universe.

You are still being wrong saying universal maximum.
Perhaps we should also abandon conservation of energy since we do not have knowledge of everything in the universe. Maybe in some corner of the universe energy is not conserved?

TheQuestor wrote:This is the ignorance of man, as this repeats, and repeats, and repeats.

Read historians. Learn more about Einstein.

TheQuestor wrote:Again, if Edwin Hubble, did not invite Einstein to Palomar, and show him the red shift, that DISPROVED EINSTEINS static universe, the static universe might still be taught.

You think that if Einstein read a paper published by Hubble about his observations static universe would be still taught?
Science is a process. Theories suggested and with more knowledge from experiments and observations modified or abandonded.

TheQuestor wrote:There is just no sense, for anyone, to believe that Einstein, had knowledge of everything,

Who believes that?

TheQuestor wrote: and again his formulas are missing 96 percent of all matter.

In what sense his formulas are missing 96 percent of all matter? And are you sure with the number 96 for matter?

You are defending theories, as though they are real. I actually believe, that there is something that has been identified as a black hole, the problem, is that knowing what this is from trillions of miles away, makes about as much sense as a square Earth. Stephen Hawking has exemplary credentials, and nevertheless, is just intelligent enough, concerning black holes, to know that he was wrong. The people at CERN have the biggest machine ever built, to study the atom, Einstein had nothing, except a pencil and paper, Hubbel slept all day for a lifetime, so he could look to the stars at night, Einstein did nothing, except write with a pencil and paper, and Hubble said that Einstein's nonsense is wrong. You need to accept, that these concepts are justified, and that Hawking himself, has called his books, that many have on their shelves now, blunderous nonsense. Hubbel forced Einstein, to say the same thing.

http://www.springer.com/about+springer/ ... -1454941-0

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... -old-crap/