"Each ray of light moves in the coordinate system 'at rest' with the definite, constant velocity V independent of whether this ray of light is emitted by a body at rest or a body in motion." -Albert Einstein, 1905
The more kinetic energy you impart to something, the faster you go. But there’s a limit: the speed of light in a vacuum. In fact, if you have any mass at all, you’ll never reach it; if you have no mass, it’s the only speed you can travel at. But why is it finite instead of infinite? Why does it have the particular value it has? And why couldn’t it be faster or slower under different physical circumstances?
From a theoretical point of view, many of these questions were answered way back in 1865, with the formulation of Maxwell’s equations. But over the past 150 years, measurements and tests have gotten more stringent, new manifestations of the speed of light were found, and new physical consequences have emerged. But the conclusions remain unchanged: the speed of light is the same constant value everywhere and at all times.
Bose condensation effects the way virtual particles behave inside it.
In a vacuum, light photons move from virtual particle to the next at a constant average rate determined by the rate if creation/destruction cycle of the virtual particles. Bose condensation appears to effect that average creation/destruction cycle of virtual particles so that light is greatly slowed down as it moves through the condinsate.
The bose condinsate gives the photons an effective mass.
"In fact, if you have any mass at all, you’ll never reach it; if you have no mass" This is an inexact interpretation. If you got into a Ford Mustang and accelerated at 1 G for seven months and then integrated your speedometer, you would calculate a velocity greater than the speed of light. The reason you can do this is the Principal of Relativity, which states, briefly, that you can perform no experiment that will tell you how fast you're going. An observer standing on the spot where the Mustang started would, of course, see you take off and never reach the velocity of light, nor could that observer push you to the speed of light, but if you had enough gas in your tank, you could do both.
Here's a thought. Though I bristle at what the phrase "intelligent design" has come to mean, there certainly does seem to be some thinking that went into the creation of the Universe.
Suppose you set out to create something like the bubble we call our Universe. You might be an all powerful race, omnipotent compared to human standards, but whatever materials you have, one has to assume they're limited.
That would mean that the reason that the speed of light is fixed is because it would have taken too much of whatever "stuff" was used to build the universe (strings?) to have it be able to go any faster.
The same would apply to concepts like the Planck length and Planck time. Any smaller a possible distance would have required a Universe with more "stuff", or a greater resolution.
Aren't the E and B fields in a traveling light wave out-of-phase, so that the energy density E.dot.E + B.dot.B remains constant?
@Mike #2: Nope. If you got into your Ford Mustang and accelerated at 1g for however long you wish, you would always measure yourself (inside the car) at rest.
If you try to measure your speed relative to the outside world, you will measure that speed to be very close to, but less than, the speed of light.
The calculation you propose isn't a measurement, and in fact violates the known laws of physics. Therefore whatever results from it is essentially invalid, not a counterexample to relativity.
@Axil #1: Word salad. Light travelling through _any_ medium (whether a Bose condensate or a piece of clear plastic) is affected by interactions with the REAL PARTICLES (specifically, the charged electrons or ions ) which make up that medium. It is, correctly, those scattering interactions with real particles which slow down the speed of light in the medium relative to vacuum.
Your attempt to use magic words you don't understand merely serves to underline your essential ignorance of the physics involved.
@David #4: That's what you might think (each field's time rate of change drives the other), but that isn't the case.
If you combine Maxwell's zero-source equations (i.e., the two curl relationships with no charges and no currents), what you get is a relation between the time derivative of one and the space derivatives of the other. The net result is that the two fields are in phase.
Having spent a dozen years tweaking relatavistic electrons (gamma > 2,000) I got to thinking about interstellar travel. What would happen if you built a rocket that would provide an acceleration of one "g" year after year?
It turns out that at an acceleration of one "g' your velocity would be 1.03 times the speed of light after one year assuming Newtonian mechanics. So what would your velocity be according to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity?
To save y'all the trouble here is my analysis:
I hope you like my Proton Annihilation Rocket.
Greetings! The Duke University Free Electron Laser depends on a bunch of SLAC "hand me down" S-band klystrons and 500 kW magnet power supplies from FermiLab.
Today the HIGS at TUNL (Triangle Universities Nuclear Laboratory) is the world's brightest gamma ray source:
@gallopingcamel #9: Cool! And nice job on the "ramjet" calculations. You can't annihilate protons against each other, because you violate charge conservation, baryon number, and a bunch of other things.
To see what you'd get from proton-proton collisions, take a look at the LHC -- it uses two beams of protons (rather than protons and antiprotons like Fermilab used). What you get out is a huge spray of pions, essentially over 4 pi.
"If you got into a Ford Mustang and accelerated at 1 G for seven months and then integrated your speedometer, you would calculate a velocity greater than the speed of light. "
No you can't. Because your acceleration is wrt the body being accelerated, which is 1G but no velocity. The Mustang is always exactly where the mustang is. Velocity zero.
"there certainly does seem to be some thinking that went into the creation of the Universe."
Only incompetent idiocy appears to have been in the creation of the universe.
Why make the stuff so inimical to life in practically every location for a start? Why have so much hydrogen, when it's only the heavier elements that can be used to make life?
Building blocks. The design is brilliant, really. Much easier to make something simple that evolves into something complex than to start with the complexity.
If it would be simpler, then you're merely supporting the claim of idiot creator.
Or, perhaps, creators with limited resources brilliant enough to design a system that starts out so simple yet is capable of growing into something so complex as the Universe we know today.
Frankly, I find it a bit laughable that a puny human would refer to a race of beings capable of creating our local bubble as idiots.
The only thing idiotic is your line of reasoning.
No, they'd still be shown to be morons. If their creation is so badly designed for what they've designed it for, and the only reason for that is that it's simpler, you're not doing anything more than showing how incompetent the designers are.
You have to special plead intelligence in there, when all you have demonstrated is idiocy for them.
"Frankly, I find it a bit laughable that a puny human would refer to a race of beings capable of creating our local bubble as idiots."
Aren't you getting the horse waaaaaay before the cart there? You're presupposing that they
b) created the local bubble
Frankly a race that couldn't do better than this POS local bubble can only be called incompetent idiots.
Shit design: shit designer.
It's just logic.
HOWEVER, if there wasn't a designer, then there's no shit design. And we wouldn't expect a better fitted universe, because it never had a design goal in the first place.
@Michael Kelsey Wow what a condescending know all you are.
What a nightmare it would be to be stuck in a lift with you.
You are assuming it is the adults of the super race that created the local bubble. Maybe we were just made by their equivalent of a Play-Do set in the hands of their equivalent of a toddler.
Michael Kelsey @ #10,
As you point out "4 pi" energy release means no momentum.
That gamma ray mirror is "tongue in cheek" but I can't help feeling that our grasp of particle physics is quite primitive.
Even though thermonuclear fusion rockets should be 10 million times more effective than chemical rockets they won't be powerful enough to reach the speeds for inter-stellar flight in a single human life span. However they should be more than adequate for moving freight around our solar system as required for asteroid mining.
Our ex-SLAC klystrons are capable of 30 MW output on a good day with the wind behind them. I imagine the klystrons you are using deliver over 60 MW. We used WG 284 waveguides pressurized with SF6. Are your waveguides under vacuum?
@gallopingcamel #18: I can imagine some sort of gamma-ray mirror in principle. Just as X-ray mirrors rely on Bragg reflection, you could imagine constructing a metamaterial where gammas could Bragg reflect off the nuclei. How to do that in practice is left as an acercise for the reader :-)
All our beamlines (which include the waveguides to carry klystron energy into them) are/were under high vacuum, so far as I know. I don't work on the LCLS (I was on BaBar until it ended in 2008, and since then I've been working on the SuperCDMS dark matter search).
In Wow's universe, only he is intelligent, he is the alpha and omega, and every conversation with him begins and ends with that. He also is a nihilist, so debating him is an exercise in handling an 'angry teenager' who feels passionately about how nothing matters...except themself. Oh irony, where is thy sting?
Sadly, if wow thinks our 'bubble' of a universe is a POS, (in relation to what, he hasn't made clear), he is technically a POS of a POS.
No, CFT, what you just did there was a strawman. It's only because you have nothing better to attack that you have to resort to making up reality and attack that.
"Sadly, if wow thinks our ‘bubble’ of a universe is a POS, (in relation to what, he hasn’t made clear)"
Well, apart from the time I explain that:
Why make the stuff so inimical to life in practically every location for a start? Why have so much hydrogen, when it’s only the heavier elements that can be used to make life?
So, yeah, apart from where I explain why it's a POS, I totally don't explain why it's a POS.
Or you can't read.
@CFT - I am new to this blog so I am only just getting to know people here. Thanks for taking the time to point out what was quickly becoming painfully obvious. I generally refrain from entertaining trolls and petulant children.
Such a shame for him to be missing out on the incredible wonder of creation because of his narrow minded and extremely negative approach.
I suppose that makes him clueless.
"Such a shame for him to be missing out on the incredible wonder of creation because of his narrow minded and extremely negative approach."
Uh, how is the wonder of this universe not there because something alien creating this universe isn't accepted without ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER as having happened?
Art, so I guess when you opened up with
Though I bristle at what the phrase “intelligent design” has come to mean
You weren't being entirely honest with us and you're really an IDer who never bristled about ID at all. Unless you're bristling at the stupidity of IDers hiding gawd behind "but it's an alien, not a gawd!" belittling both their faith AND their argument being laughed at with the heavy dose of good reason for it.
I bristle at the IDers that say that their silly book proves the Earth is 5000 years old. Don't you? You can't put me in the same group simply because I think the design of our Universe suggests an intelligence behind it.
Odd how the god squad, having found god was a bit of a hard act to swallow for anyone not indoctrinated at an early age have moved over to aliens (not gawd!) as if that is any easier to prove than a trickster spirit who keeps running away, and when it's pointed out that this is really just god anyway, then tries to make it a RACE of aliens-totally-not-god-things. How does a race of such unprovable things make it *easier* to explain???
"Describing The Universe as a POS surely sounds to me like you’re missing out."
IT IS a POS if it's designed. I don't see design. See post #17 again, moron.
And what do you claim I'm missing out on? I DON'T LIVE IN INTERSTELLAR SPACE. And the fact I can't live on the surface of a star or in the atmosphere of Titan doesn't mean they're crap. They're only crap if I wanted to live there, and their only use was as a home for me. So what am I missing, AS YOU SEE IT, by calling it a POS? I've already kicked down the likely candidates, so what is it you think I'm missing, and how is that indicated by calling it a POS design?
"I bristle at the IDers that say that their silly book proves the Earth is 5000 years old. "
That's not what ID means. It means pretending that aliens gone done it, as a pretense that creationism can be taught in schools because it's not god, it's aliens.
But there's nothing indicating aliens did it either. It's not even nonsense.
"You can’t put me in the same group simply because I think the design of our Universe suggests an intelligence behind it."
Yes I can: you think its "intelligently designed", you're an IDer. BY DEFINITION.
No, you're pretty much rude and condescending, period. You must awake each morning in a foul mood.
That a system capable of evolving into something so vast and complex from something so small and simple could just occur randomly seems less likely to me.
Aside from all the mundane and base things that I expect you would assign to intelligent life, the one thing it does that separates it more from the rocks than anything else is that it creates.
We humans in our own primitive way spend our entire days creating, and I expect you'd have all sorts of foul things to say about that, too, but you could not deny the fact that we create. It is essentially the second most rewarding thing we do, perhaps only behind understanding the world around us.
If an intelligence could possibly exist that could create what we know as our Universe, and our Universe did not exist, that intelligence would create it.
You can run it down all you want in your own childish vulgar way, but if you could suspend your own disbelief for a moment and accept the fact that The Universe might be the product of intelligence, for you to malign it as a POS betrays a lack of understanding of the meager physics we humans know.
To me the evolution from simple to complex boggles the mind.
"the design of our Universe suggests an intelligence behind it."
No, the crap design of the universe indicates there's a moron behind it.
YOU are the one insisting there must be a thing behind it all. But it DEFINITELY isn't suggesting intelligence, only the lack of it. So either a moron or no designer.
Troll off somewhere else why don't you. You are rude and condescending all the time. I really don't care what you know, or think you know, only that you have next to no ability whatsoever to convey knowledge without being a jerk.
I'm beginning to think you are not capable of controlling your ego long enough to say anything of scientific merit without an insult attached to it.
As to your argument, or lack thereof,
If the universe was not mostly composed of hydrogen, how do you think the heavier elements would have come about? Didn't those stars formed from that hydrogen create the heavier elements? Why is that stupid? Because it wasn't done all at once (spontaneously) in an instant to satisfy one petty human according to your timescale? If you were to build a house, would it indicate a moron built it because sequential steps requiring time were required to complete it? Every intelligent endeavor AND natural process still takes intermediary steps. If you knew anything about agriculture you would realize that often there in an intelligence at work behind a natural process, like planting. The farmer doesn't make the plant grow, he provides the needed conditions that allow the plant to grow. I'm not making this argument for or against a created or natural universe, I'm merely pointing out that your argument does not logically or otherwise shine any light on either possibility, only your very vocal preference.
You seriously need to work on the mechanics of your arguments more, and your invective a lot less. You also need to learn how to disagree with people without calling them names, as you won't even be able to hold down a job as a fast food clerk much less a scientist in a lab if you can't control your big mouth.
"You are rude and condescending all the time. "
WRONG. I'm rude to you all the time, but you're rude to the entire blog. To those who AREN'T arseholes, I'm not rude. And no, just because you're a clueless moron, this doesn't make me condescending. There's no possible way to do anything other than look down on you.
But tell you what, nobody is making you come here. If demands of others are going to be a thing here, then piss off and never come back.
"You seriously need to work on the mechanics of your arguments more"
Nope, if they were bad, you wouldn't have to tone troll instead.
"If the universe was not mostly composed of hydrogen, how do you think the heavier elements would have come about?"
What is this about? The claim is that it was intelligently designed.
YOU need to work on your arguments, dearie.
Or piss off. I'll let you choose.
Sorry, when you're that far below the intelligence of the average human as you have made clear yourself in your short posting history here, how on earth can "condescending" be anything bad? It's like Hitler crying about how he's being hated on.
You're an IDer.
WITH NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, you proclaim that there is an alien race that created all this. Based on the creationist "Argument from Design". Which doesn't even work on entities that are SUPPOSED to be powerful enough to create universes!
Moreover, you intuit intelligence of this moronic designer because of how simple it is. But if there were NO DESIGNER, it would STILL be simple.
Sorry, pet, your ignorance and arrogance DESERVE rude language and condescension. don't like it? Then get better arguments. Nobody is here to make you feel like your special snowflake personality is deserved.
Unlike you, I proclaim nothing. I have no more proof that an intelligence stands behind the design of The Universe than you have that it doesn't.
It doesn't get my panties in a bunch when you suggest random happenstance, unlike you, who is eager to spout all sorts of piss and vinegar at the mere suggestion that there MIGHT be an intelligence behind what exists.
You can't prove what you say any more than I can prove what I say. I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it, or turn into a vile insulting curmudgeon about it.
" seems less likely to me."
And argument from personal incredulity.
So how likely is it that ANOTHER universe bubble "That [is] a system capable of evolving into something so vast and complex from something so small and simple could just occur randomly" AND ALSO CREATE CREATURES ABLE TO CREATE OTHER UNIVERSES???
You have swapped "gods all the way back" to "aliens all the way back". AND A RACE OF THEM. Not just a singleton, but an entire race. None of whom have superpowers!
Because you MEAN god when you talk about aliens.
Because this is just a weaksauce attempt to get your version of christianity taught in schools, an attempt that merely shitcans your god into a rubber alien suit like some cheap-ass Star Trek extra of the week.
You have no concept of what I consider god. I'm a pantheist. Square that with your distorted perspective of who I am.
And where in the hell do you extrapolate what we're discussing as Christianity being taught in schools? With all your immature insults, that one cuts the deepest, and it just demonstrates your own bias.
If it's not random happenstance, it's all got to be B.S., and religious B.S. to boot? It's a rather simplistic binary view, wouldn't you say?
Capable of any nuance?
"We humans in our own primitive way spend our entire days creating"
Doesn't prove the universe was created by some pandimensonal superbeings.
Bring one up and lets see them.
After all, we believe a watch is manufactured BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN HUMANS DO IT.
Not once have I seen an alien. Never mind one creating a universe. Hell, not even alien blueprints for one. Come up with their blueprints and you have some evidence.
"Unlike you, I proclaim nothing."
Another lie from you.
“the design of our Universe suggests an intelligence behind it.”
Remember that, moron? And your claim:
“Frankly, I find it a bit laughable that a puny human would refer to a race of beings capable of creating our local bubble as idiots.”
" I have no more proof that an intelligence stands behind the design of The Universe"
You have NO PROOF.
" than you have that it doesn’t."
Burden of proof, you creationist retard. It's far less likely that such superbeings exist than they don't.
ESPECIALLY since the retarded design of the universe would indicate that there IS no intelligence behind the design of the universe.
"It doesn’t get my panties in a bunch ..."
That sentence went nowhere. And meanwhile you're wadding your panties in a rage that you're outed as a creotard.
"You can’t prove what you say any more than I can prove what I say."
Yes I can. They're not here, They're not elsewhere. Therefore they don't exist. THAT IS ALL that is needed to prove something doesn't exist.
You have the burden of proof, but like any "good" creotard, you insist that your insane imaginings are as valid as any other opinion because you don't have proof you're right.
Do you talk to your mother with that mouth? I really can't carry on an intelligent mature conversation with someone as angry or as single minded as you are. Don't expect me to take any more of your bait. You must lead a very sad life if you approach others the way you do the posters on this blog. I feel very sorry for you, actually.
...Burden of proof, you creationist retard. It’s far less likely that such superbeings exist than they do...
Ah, forget it, the creotard requires the nonsensical proof of nonexistence of something that is impossible to prove because it's not even goddamned defined, and insists that this makes it just as valid that green-skinned alien pixies exist in his sock drawer as that they don't.
Which is frigging insane.
THEY ARE NOT EQUAL PROBABILITIES.
Indeed, only one is consistent with all evidence: their nonexistence.
"Do you talk to your mother with that mouth?"
Do you always talk trash about mothers? What is it with this hate-on about mothers you have?
" I really can’t carry on an intelligent mature conversation "
Yes, we can tell. You really aren't equipped with it. Go and ask Behe for some different techniques, don't let him pawn you off with what worked for your defective brain.
" with someone as angry "
Hey, you have spewed some major league haterade for me, merely because I won't let you spew bullshit here on a science blog.
"or as single minded as you are."
Nope, I have a multiplicity of thought. But what is this claim supposed to be? Desultory? But single mindedness is a positive attribute.
"You must lead a very sad life if you approach others the way you do the posters on this blog."
No, I have a great life, though yours must be terrible for you to cling to such empty headed thoughts as trying to make out that someone you can't win over to your idiocy must be sad, so you can feel better.
" I feel very sorry for you, actually."
No, actually you don't. You just want to do a passive aggressive "I'm better than you" bollocks. Because pretending your god has a godzillasuit on isn't working, and neither is your false equivalency, so you're hung dry and looking for some ego saving trick to depart on.
I don't feel sorry for you. You've done it to yourself. You have DELIBERATELY thrown your brain's capacity for intelligence and thought into the gutter because you were scared shitless as a child and haven't worked out how to deprogram yourself as an adult, so you attempt to poison everyone else so you won't feel so alone.
"You have no concept of what I consider god. "
Neither do you. But this is irrelevant anyway.
"I’m a pantheist."
But that means there's no design behind the universe, any more than you designed yourself as a baby from conception. Yet here you are claiming that there "must be" design.
A pantheist wouldn't infer that aliens created the universe because if they did, then they also created the god. And if gods can be create by non-gods, then they aren't gods.
You don't even know what pantheism means.
"And where in the hell do you extrapolate what we’re discussing as Christianity being taught in schools"
IDers. You, that would be. See Dover vs Kitzmiller (spelling may be off).
"With all your immature insults, that one cuts the deepest,"
"If it’s not random happenstance"
You need proof it's not. You can't just go "But aaaalieeeeennss!".
And if your argument is going to be it;s too complex, then the introduction of aliens has to be LESS COMPLEX than the universe you're trying to simplify.
" it’s all got to be B.S., and religious B.S. to boot? "
Again, you appear not to know what pantheism is.
" It’s a rather simplistic binary view, wouldn’t you say?"
No, but then again, you're the one making the false dichotomy claim. I only pointed out that YOU were talking BS, and religious BS at that. Not that it can only ever be that.
Rather ironic that you should force my claims into something different that is far less nuanced than what is in my post indicates and then whinge:
"Capable of any nuance?"
Because you are the one shoehorning me into words never said that are simplistic and lacking in nuance.
"Maybe we were just made by their equivalent of a Play-Do set in the hands of their equivalent of a toddler"
So we have to have play-do that has the feature of crating universes. In a universe that apparently didn't have its creation by play-do, given it was those aliens who had the play-do.
How likely is that to be true, compared to this universe came about by random?
We're not even into the probability of the race either.
So, no, "maybe" is wrong. Stretching a "maybe" that far makes it meaningless, and the only cogent claim is that it did not happen that way. If you're a solipsist, maybe that argument works for you, but that "argument" means that you've used it yourself as opposed to actually getting anywhere with it.
"Frankly, I find it a bit laughable that a puny human would refer to a race of beings capable of creating our local bubble as idiots."
What I find strange, is the self-motivation and desire of A LOT of humans (in various aspects) to downplay themselves and humans in general. And to become slaves by choice. Be it a god, gods, aliens, higher dimensional beings or whatnot... in all scenarios there is you (a puny, worthless, sinfull, dumb thing) and on the other there is some supreme, so much above you, thing that you just feel you should bow down to, serve and worship.
So it's really not about people like you disproving cosmology, or pyramids being built by aliens, or walking on water. It's about your own mental setup. Wanna be a slave by choice, for gods or super-aliens? Great... leave the rest of the world alone.
Who said anything about worshiping anyone or anything? Or that humans are worthless or sinful? You are putting words in my mouth and assigning to me concepts we both likely find offensive.
I can't believe the sh*tstorm I've created merely by mentioning that the elegance of the design of the Universe suggested there might be some intelligence behind it.
All of a sudden I'm accused of trying to get religion taught in schools - a concept anathema to me.
And when you consider the scale of reality, how can we as humans not feel a bit puny?
With that said, I'll be the last to downplay what it is to be human, at least compared to all things terrestrial.
Compared to the totality, though, all of our species' machinations don't really amount to much, do they?
"Who said anything about worshiping anyone or anything?"
But you WERE worshipping these aliens you have imagined into existence. Look moron, if you're not going go read SL's post, then don't frigging answer it. He spells it out in his post.
"I can’t believe the sh*tstorm "
Sorry, shitstorm. It's swearing.
"I’ve created merely by mentioning that the elegance of the design of the Universe"
It isn't elegant. Making shit up is wrong.
"suggested there might be some intelligence behind it."
But it DOES NOT. Lying is a BAD THING. And you're lying by omission here. SL quoted where you said even more about that intelligence, something that is only true if you presuppose that those aliens both exist AND create universes by deliberate design.
You lying fuckwit.
"All of a sudden I’m accused of trying to get religion taught in schools"
That's entirely why IDers talk like they do. Don't like it, don't talk ID bullshit.
"And when you consider the scale of reality, how can we as humans not feel a bit puny?"
But that doesn't mean there's "something bigger". You only do that if you think that puny compared to an ENTIRE FUCKING UNIVERSE is somehow a failure on humanity's part and that other beings are SO MUCH BETTER THAN US that they aren't puny compared to entire universes. Which is worshipful bollocks.
"With that said, I’ll be the last to downplay what it is to be human, "
You were the first.
"at least compared to all things terrestrial."
Why earth? What the hell is so wrong about earth that things not from earth are gods to us (well, YOU, anyway)???
And why the hell should earth be relevant in an argument about how the universe is so big compared to us, but must have been created by aliens even better than the entire universe (but totally not being worshipped, oh no, never, even if they ARE totally awesome and brilliant and smarter than us! LOOK, THERE THEY ARE!!!! SQUEEEEEE!!!!).
Hell, if you were as you claim a pantheist, those aliens are BETTER THAN GODS, since they created the thing that IS GOD.
But totally not worshipping them, right.
"they created the thing that IS GOD."
If you think the bubble we know as our Universe constitutes all of existence, you're even less imaginative than I thought, my foul mouthed friend.
"Compared to the totality, though, all of our species’ machinations don’t really amount to much, do they?"
Describing humanity as insignificant surely sounds to me like you’re missing out on what it means to be you.
"“they created the thing that IS GOD.”
If you think the bubble we know as our Universe ..."
No, YOU are a pantheist. Therefore the universe is god. Everything in this universe is god. God is the total stuff of this universe.
That's what pantheism is.
"constitutes all of existence"
Got any evidence it isn't?
So you are now insisting that there are more universes, that our universe, unlike theirs, was created by these aliens to a specific design.
Yet you think this is SIMPLER and more LOGICAL than "this universe looks the way it is because it's just the way it looks"???
You crazy motherfucker!
"If you think the bubble we know as our Universe constitutes all of existence,"
so you have strong evidence that more exists outside it? What?
Why does ours have the be the only bubble? Why can't there be more bubbles? A whole foam of them? There are some respected physicists that have considered that possibility.
There really isn't much convincing evidence for one way or the other considering our present meager understanding, but I do know that every time humankind has considered itself (or its reality, its world, etc.) to be at the center of everything, to be the be all and end all, we've been very wrong.
The Earth looks flat, but nowadays we know better. How does the previous warped perspective of a flat Earth extrapolate out to what we know as the Universe?
I'm not claiming to know, unlike others posting here. I'm just asking why not and wondering what might be. My view is informed by science but contains equal parts of intuition, imagination and conjecture.
There's no law against it, and I wonder where we'd be without it all. Still living in trees and caves?
I think you are missing the point. You are really begging the question. You conclude that there is an entity that designed the universe based on the premise that the universe is designed. Well, sure, if we grant the premise that the universe is designed, then of course there's a designer. The real question is what evidence is there that the universe is designed?
I'm not sure that it's even possible to provide evidence that a system is designed vs. randomly assembled. For instance, you see ten coins on a table, all heads up. Were these coins just thrown on the table or did someone, for whatever reason, place them there that way? There is no way to tell just by looking at the configuration of the coins.
One possible way to at least investigate the answer, though, is to inquire about the purpose of the purported design. After all, isn't that really what we mean by "design"? A designed system is designed for a purpose. What purpose would a purported designer have for creating the universe?
I won't put words in your mouth here, but if you're like just about every other ID proponent, the answer is that the purpose of the design is to produce humans. What evidence can we get from the universe that this is indeed the purpose of the design? As was correctly pointed out, the vast majority of the universe is in fact completely inhospitable for human life. It's mostly vacuum; we can't live there. Those parts that aren't are mostly dust clouds, stars, airless worlds, worlds with poisonous atmospheres, etc. Places hospitable to human life are exceedingly rare in the universe. Why would a designer who intended to produce humans design a system where possible locations for humans to live are the exception rather than the rule? If you design an aquarium for your fish, you don't block off most of it and leave it without water, only filling one small corner with water, do you? You try to make the whole thing hospitable for your fish. Why would the designer of the universe not do likewise?
It would seem more likely that the purported designer had a shortage of hydrogen and helium and created the universe as a factory to produce those substances. Or, of course, perhaps all this talk of designers is nonsense and the universe just is what it is. That is the simplest explanation, after all.
With all the possible other intelligent species in the Universe (ala the Drake Formula), why the hell would anything creating such a place make it specifically for humans? You assign to me a view exactly opposite of the one I hold.
It's just silly to suggest such a thing, and it's specifically that anthropocentric view that would lead one to believe that ours is the only Universe in existence.
Seems like you totally missed my point. I consider the possibility that the Universe has intentionally been designed because of the elegance of said design. And because intelligence creates.
If you could build your own Universe whether it be for learning and entertainment or for fun and profit, would you not do so?
We agree that it can't be proved one way or another, but it's enjoyable to pass the time thinking about the possibilities.
I won't even begin to suggest the purpose behind the design lest I incur the wrath of the foul mouthed here on this blog, but I really like your conjecture that it's just a hydrogen factory. That's easily as logical as any other, perhaps even more so.
And we're just the detritus of said manufacturing process. Talk about being insignificant! Ha! That would make US (not the Universe) the POS with which some people here seem so obsessed!
"Why does ours have the be the only bubble?"
When asked "so you have strong evidence that more exists outside it? What?", your reply is...
"There really isn’t much convincing evidence for one way or the other"
Nope, the terrible design is a contraindicator of design. And the lack of design is a contraindicator of a designer. And the logical impracticality of the designer is another contraindicator. As is the increased complexity of assuming a designer over assuming there is none.
And indicating there IS a designer is, even by your admission, nothing.
So, no, there isn't as much for as against.
You are a lying moron.
"My view is informed by science "
No it isn't. It's informed by your wishes and your religious beliefs. Not science.
"but contains equal parts of intuition, imagination and conjecture."
None of which is science. Read up what the scientific method is, moron.
A designed system is designed for a purpose. What purpose would a purported designer have for creating the universe?
I won’t put words in your mouth here, but if you’re like just about every other ID proponent, the answer is that the purpose of the design is to produce humans
Then the design is a POS.
Moreover, the desire to make YOU the point of all existence is both arrogant and indicates WHY you insist on this fatuous claim: you have so little in your life of yourself, that you must invent a reason for you to be special.
It would seem more likely that the purported designer had a shortage of hydrogen and helium
No, that isn't what the problem is. For a start, it's MUCH more likely that there is no design and no designer. You still haven't understood "begging the question". Secondly, there's no need to limit hydrogen. They didn't get the hydrogen from some DIY homestore and run out of budget. The Big Bang could come up with any figure for hydrogen. Lastly, there's no indication that a designer would HAVE to put 99.9% of the universe into this parlous moronic design merely because there's not enough hydrogen. Yet another question begged.
Sean, the odd ability of some posters to post indented confused me. But if the quotes I took were validly your opinions, rather than devil's advocate, then they still stand.
"The Earth looks flat"
No it doesn't. Lots of bumps all over the place.
"but nowadays we know better."
Some don't. But "nowadays" means at least 2500 years, and probably over 4000. Ever since humans have been able to sail out of sight of land.
"How does the previous warped perspective of a flat Earth extrapolate out to what we know as the Universe?"
In the same way as Duck Dodgers in the 24th and a half Century does. IOW not at all.
"I’m not claiming to know"
Then you shouldn't have claimed to know there was a suggestion of design in something that doesn't suggest design.
"I’m just asking why not "
Because it doesn't look designed, and the designer would have to be much more complicated, ergo IT had to be created by natural causes into a far more complex thing than the thing you have insisted on being there to simplify by making. It's the same problem as creationists have, but multiplied by the fact that this one can't even do magic.
What's raging everyone about this is that you refuse to listen.
"With all the possible other intelligent species in the Universe (ala the Drake Formula),"
You don't even know what the Drake Formula is. Hint: it isn't proof there are a shitload of species in the universe.
"why the hell would anything creating such a place make it specifically for humans"
The universe is inimical to life, for 99.999% of its extent. Not made for ANY life.
"and it’s specifically that anthropocentric view that would lead one to believe that ours is the only Universe in existence."
Nope, it doesn't.
" I consider the possibility that the Universe has intentionally been designed because of the elegance of said design"
But it's crap design. Just the same design as if there was no designer. You keep making proclamations and then whine about how you're not making any claims. Doesn't work.
"If you could build your own Universe whether it be for learning and entertainment or for fun and profit, would you not do so?"
And a reappearance of the logical fallacy.
"We agree that it can’t be proved one way or another"
But the evidence points to there being no designer. Or design. And no evidence to there being either design or a designer.
Something you do not appear able to agree to, even while insisting we agree on some thing nobody has ever mentioned in dispute. Talk about taking the easy target. Strawman fallacy ahoy!
"but I really like your conjecture that it’s just a hydrogen factory. That’s easily as logical as any other, perhaps even more so."
No it isn't. 99% of the hydrogen will NEVER be processed. Moreover, this still isn't anything like evidence for design.
" That would make US (not the Universe) the POS with which some people here seem so obsessed!"
Only to morons like you.
"And we’re just the detritus of said manufacturing process. Talk about being insignificant! "
Welp, given you have already said you would be the last to dress humans down, when you were the first one, I guess repeating the dressing down of your own species is nothing new.
But SL is given yet more evidence he called it right on you.
"And because intelligence creates."
So what intelligence created the snowflake?
"Why can’t there be more bubbles? A whole foam of them? There are some respected physicists that have considered that possibility."
- true, but as a mathematical consequence of an eternal inflation theory. Not as a result of aliens creating bubbles.
"but I do know that every time humankind has considered itself (or its reality, its world, etc.) to be at the center of everything, "
- none of today's cosmology is putting Earth or humans in the center of anything. Quite the opposite really. You're mixing the scientific view with a religious one.
" I’m just asking why not and wondering what might be. "
- if your question is honest, then here is the honest answer. Because your view/hypothesis doesn't solve any of the current issues in cosmology, nor is does offer any predictions. Further since there is no way of testing what is outside of the universe, it can be pink elephants instead of aliens for all the difference it would do. And lastly, it's the classic case of "turtles all the way down", since the first question is ok.. but who/what created those aliens outside of the universe and their universe.. and so on.
"as a mathematical consequence of an eternal inflation theory. Not as a result of aliens creating bubbles"
With all due respect, actually, you're mixing the two, not me. The fact that our Universe might not be the only one, and the fact that the way it works suggests some kind of coherent thought went into the design were two mutually exclusive points that I was making.
Can't you see how the view that the Universe is exclusive might be viewed as anthropocentric?
You're saying that the Universe in which humans reside can be the only one there is. That really smacks of a modern version of the sun revolving around the Earth.
Of everything there is, there is usually more than just one of them. It almost seems like just simple common sense to me.
As for the design of the Universe being random happenstance, to me that seems like a case of the proverbial infinite number of monkeys. Yes, given infinity the infinite number of monkeys will indeed eventually pen Shakespeare.
And that strains your credulity less than some thought going into the design?
Here my view is informed by a very basic understanding of physics. To think of a system that can assemble a limited set of elementary particles into all that there is boggles my mind. It is about the most ingenious thing I can conceive.
Neither of these views is intended to resolve any pressing issues with cosmology. Quite the opposite. There's no way we'll ever know which is true.
Actually, I'm liking the "hydrogen factory" conjecture more and more as I think about it!
"– none of today’s cosmology is putting Earth or humans in the center of anything. Quite the opposite really. You’re mixing the scientific view with a religious one."
And HUGELY ironic coming from art when they've whinged and moaned and ranted against being given a religious view that he doesn't hold (as far as he claims, but his claims of pantheism don't hold up, so who can tell, eh?).
"With all due respect, actually, you’re mixing the two"
No, he's not. YOU are ignoring one (reality), and SL is pointing out that there's the real one out there.
"The fact that our Universe might not be the only one, and the fact that the way it works suggests some kind of coherent thought went into the design"
Nope, neither do that. The fact that our universe might not be the only one has NO BEARING on the design features you ascribe to the universe. And the way it works suggests that there was NO DESIGN AT ALL.
"Can’t you see how the view that the Universe is exclusive might be viewed as anthropocentric?"
No, you fuckwit, nobody can.
And nobody knows why you might think this pertinent, either.
"And that strains your credulity less than some thought going into the design?"
YES. Because there doesn't appear to be thought going on in your head.
1) You presuppose design
2) Then that monkeys are the lack of design
3) Then that monkeys are too hard to use, therefore spacealien god exists.
"Here my view is informed by a very basic understanding of physics. "
No, it's informed by your religious dogma. Nothing else. Your inability to listen to ANYBODY except where they agree with you unconditionally proves that.
"There’s no way we’ll ever know which is true."
But we know that your claims of evidence for your spacealien god is nonexistent, whilst the evidence there for no such thing is exactly what you'd expect if there were no spacealien god.
But you'll never know what that means, because you're incapable of coherent thought on this.
Dudes and dudettes, there's no point trying to get through to artless moron here by avoiding any intemperate language, since they don't WANT to hear what you say, only find out how you can be agreeing with them.
And when all else fails (as it surely does) insist that since we can't PROVE either case, that this must mean it's a sane idea to claim that the universe is designed and space aliens created it.
As opposed to fucking nuts.
I am in full agreement with you; there is no evidence that the universe is designed. There are quite valid mechanisms that explain how the universe came to be the way it is without the need for a designer.
My main thrust was to put forth something I don't see much anywhere. Grant the IDiots the assumption that the universe is designed, regardless of how unlikely that is. Then, why would there be any reason to believe that it was designed for humans, (Or Art for any other intelligent race). I think your posts are arguing along similar lines. A designer creating a universe for intelligent life would not make the majority of it completely inhospitable to life. It's much more likely that, if designed, the intent was to produce hydrogen and helium, just as one alternative purpose.
maybe it was a failed experiment.. excited the inflaton field in the wrong way and woooosh. :D this is all just an afterglow
"It’s much more likely that, if designed, the intent was to produce hydrogen and helium, just as one alternative purpose."
But that's not likely either. You don't breed cows so you can cut the grass. And you don't blow up buildings so you have some gravel and sand.
So why would something able to create entire universes create one rather than create hydrogen or helium? Especially since there's no way to get that stuff OUT of that bubble universe, given that this entity is not magical and has to obey the laws of physics.
Not to mention that the hydrogen is a few atoms per liter on average. How long would it take to get a few thousand tons? And why the excessive waste for that amount of hydrogen? But collecting a significant proportion doesn't help, since it takes that much longer to collect it.
And the denser stuff is too hot to put in any container for transport.
Drying socks by burning down your house while you sit in it wearing your damp socks.
If that is what the designer meant, then they're a shedload dumber than even the wildest imagination could accept.
Heck it COULD be just an accident, like some alien went "I wonder what this does...". HOWEVER that really won't explain any insistence there's design in the universe. Which was what "aliens gone done it" was asserted to be for (And totally NOT to get Christianity taught in schools!).
And it's not necessary, since universes would still have to be created somewhere without this alien accident. So until we have evidence, put it in the same sock drawer as the invisible pink unicorns who eat socks, and ignore the idea.
Pointless too, since it explains nothing. It's the most pointless idea since "Am I a man imagining I'm a butterfly, or a butterfly imagining it's a man".
Speed of light are not constant sorry, when (a star) photon comes near Sun tangentially (= in direction 90 degree to the radius of the Sun) gravity has effect on it, the path bend toward the Sun.
But what happen at 80 degree? 70? 20? 10? 1?
Yes, gravity act on photons radially too.
What happen? Yes photon will accelerates when approach to the Sun.
Luckily this effect can measurable experimentally by the very sensitive Mossbauer effect, when a photon fall to the Earth their velocity increase a bit.
The usual rotation of Michelson interferometer inadequate for demonstration the rush of Earth in direction to Crater/Leo constellation.
But with a one way interferometer of Silvertooth can measure the 370 km/sec flight on the direction Crater/Leo.
Speed of light are constant, sorry.
"when (a star) photon comes near Sun tangentially (= in direction 90 degree to the radius of the Sun) gravity has effect on it, the path bend toward the Sun."
Which doesn't speed the light up, otherwise you would be able to show us that. BTW, it doesn't have to be tangential. Gravity works no matter what angle you take passing a massive body. Otherwise there would never be a collision between two bodies in space.
Someone set us up the bomb?
" Yes photon will accelerates when approach to the Sun."
No, photon will change the energy it has, not its speed.
"Luckily this effect can measurable experimentally by the very sensitive Mossbauer effect, when a photon fall to the Earth their velocity increase a bit."
The Mössbauer effect, or recoilless nuclear resonance fluorescence, is a physical phenomenon discovered by Rudolf Mössbauer in 1958. It involves the resonant and recoil-free emission and absorption of gamma radiation by atomic nuclei bound in a solid.
Oooh, unluckily, the effect isn't a velocity change. Sorry.
"The usual rotation of Michelson interferometer inadequate for demonstration the rush of Earth in direction to Crater/Leo constellation."
That is incorrect, sorry.
"But with a one way interferometer of Silvertooth can measure the 370 km/sec flight on the direction Crater/Leo."
Sorry, you are wrong, sorry.
Thank you for answer, but all point of it are false.
The Mössbauer is only the key method, a technic with which we can decide whether the falling photon accelerated or not.
If the photon fall to the Earth eg only 20 meter so a detector cannot absorb the light in the consequence of photon acceleration. Why I think so?
Because if the detector moved downward (compensated the increment of photon velocity) so the accelerated photon can absorbed. Else not. If you dont move detector down, the absorption inhibited.
This move of detector can only compensate velocity increments and NOT gravitational shift. This gravitational shift only a consequence of the change of photon velocity.
Thank you for link of diligent repetition of Silvertooth experiment by Doug Marett, who elaborately works with Silvertooth method and explicitly confirmed Silvertooth results, namely 370 km/sec in the direction of Crater /Leo.
Unluckily his instrument was not rotatable (contrary to Silvertooth equipment which was turnable) so he need to wait for Earth rotates onto appropriate position.
So Doug produce an error of temperature uncertainty which is no in original Silvertooth method.
Sorry, the velocity of light is NOT constant, the Michelson device is not appropriate for showing this.
"Thank you for answer, but all point of it are false."
Thank you for that bullshit, but you are wrong.
"The Mössbauer is only the key method"
Showing the change of FREQUENCY of light when falling through a gravitational field.speed doesn't change absorption, the frequency does.
"If the photon fall to the Earth eg only 20 meter so a detector cannot absorb the light in the consequence of photon acceleration. Why I think so?"
Make your time!
"Because if the detector moved downward (compensated the increment of photon velocity) so the accelerated photon can absorbed. Else not. If you dont move detector down, the absorption inhibited."
No,the frequency matters. If you're not the right frequency, there's no absorption (or it's very much less likely). Think on this: atoms are always moving. How can they absorb light if they're moving so that the light speed relative to the atom is different, if your stupid idea were correct?
So, no, you're entirely wrong and making shit up on the spot.
"Thank you for link of diligent repetition of Silvertooth experiment by Doug Marett, who elaborately works with Silvertooth method and explicitly confirmed Silvertooth results, "
As being a VERY COMPLICATED THERMOMETER. I guess you very diligently didn't read it, but assumed what it said based on what you wanted to be the case.
"Unluckily his instrument was not rotatable (contrary to Silvertooth equipment which was turnable) so he need to wait for Earth rotates onto appropriate position."
No, he just had to wait until the temperature of the room changed, as would happen naturally if the sun goes down and there's a window.
"So Doug produce an error of temperature uncertainty which is no in original Silvertooth method."
No, he found that it was due to temperature changes that the effect could be seen, NOT velocity in some bullshit aether.
Sorry, the velocity of light is IS constant
" the Michelson device is not appropriate for showing this."
Yes, because it measures what the velocity of the earth is through a medium.
But the silvertooth experiment is also not appopriate, because it measures the expansion of the instrumentation due to temperature raises.
And Mossbaur is also not appropriate because it shows the frequency change necessary for absorption can be changed by dropping in a gravitational field. This is known because using a different gamma emitter with a different frequency IT ALSO DOESN'T ABSORB. Indicating the right frequency is needed to make the reaction happen.
"But the silvertooth experiment is also not appopriate, because it measures the expansion of the instrumentation due to temperature raises."
Sir, didnt you understand that Silvertooth instrument was turnable? And Dougs was not.!
So Silvertooth was not able to introduce temperature raises!!
"The (Silvertooth) apparatus is mounted on an optical table such that it may be rotated about a vertical axis."
Only Doug can with his simplified device.
"Sir, didnt you understand that Silvertooth instrument was turnable?"
"And Dougs was not.!"
Not in the room. BUT THE EARTH TURNS, RETARD. Moreover, since this "non-turning" test ALSO got the same answers, AND it could get the same answers merely by turning off the heating, it proves that the silvertooth experiment has NOT proven any such claim as you make of it. Because "The temperature changed" is both simpler, well understood and more likely to be true.
'So Silvertooth was not able to introduce temperature raises!!"
Nobody says it introduced them.
It MEASURED them.
How could Silvertooth measure temp changes if temperature in lab does not change?
The temp was change only at Doug experiment where -as you said correctly- he should waiting for Earth turns. During this long time he can change the temp in laboratory if he want. But not in Silvertooth, because he should not wait, he can turn apparatus as short as seconds. No temp changes.
Doug Marett can simulate effect of temperature change? Big deal. It does not matter.
Let suppose someone could simulate the effect by manipulation of magnetism or even with changing the air pressure. Then you would state the Silvertooth effect was in the consequence of air pressure? Even the air pressure was stable?
In Silvertooth experiment the temperature was not effective, because temperature was not changed (perceivably).
The temperature could effective only on Dougs experiment, because his simplified device was NOT turnable.
"How could Silvertooth measure temp changes if temperature in lab does not change?"
Begging the question "The temperature in the lab does not change". Except it does.
"But not in Silvertooth, because he should not wait, he can turn apparatus as short as seconds. No temp changes."
The experiment HE laid out DOD NOT claim that it was seconds. Indeed it has NEVER been replicated under the same condition. THAT is why the experiment and conclusions are not accepted.
Yet, despite another experiment showing that temperature explains the result, exactly the same way, THAT one you refuse to accept.
Kind of a double standard there for your "proof", isn't it?
Now, either listen up or fuck off and be a stupid cunt in private:
THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS A CONSTANT.
Would you kind to guess how much time need to rotate Silvertooth turnable apparatus from east-west to north-south?
Hours? Days? Months?
You shouldnt guess it in case Dougs experiment, because we know surely, he need to wait for it 6 hours.
"Each session was typically around 11 – 13 hours"
Dougs "..laser was started at the beginning of each session, allowed at least 45 minutes to warm up, then the frequency was locked using temperature stabilization."
And the results are completely as in Silvertooth:
If temperature can affect on GPS clocks for example, so you questioned time dilation?
Go read the link again. The one you haven't understood.
Now fuck off and leave this space for the adults to discuss.
"If temperature can affect on GPS clocks for example, so you questioned time dilation?"
No, because they correct for that.
Why are you linking to a report that concludes
After considerable study as detailed in this report, the “Silvertooth effect” as I have called it can now be fully explained. The diurnal change in room temperature, due largely to a combination of the heating/cooling cycles of the sun and routine human activity, cause slight changes in the beam exit angle from a HeNe laser tube. This in turn changes the length of the beam paths in the optical circuit, and ultimately the angle at which the beams intersect in interference at the photo-detectors SWD and PD. The net result is that when the stage is moved along these intersecting paths, the number of wave peaks and troughs counted at the detectors will differ in proportion to the temperature induced change in the beam angles. Thus the result of this experiment is not evidence of any directionally dependent difference in wavelength – it is in fact only a very elaborate thermometer! In Silvertooth’s own experiments this temperature effect was likely more dramatic since his laser was not frequency-stabilized. This revelation is undoubtedly a deep disappointment to many who held on to the notion that this experiment might represent elusive evidence of an optically detectable ether
for proof of your claims that an aether has been detected by the Silvertooth experiment?
Welcome Art! I thoroughly enjoyed reading your ruminations, and your response to the energizer bunny troll that lurks hereabout. From him there is no whimsy, no joy, no creative or imaginative impulse. My approach is to skip over posts starting with Wow; perhaps that might help you too.
Thanks for your welcome, Carl. I'm one step ahead of you regarding Wow! I too simply skip past anything posted by him.
Even if he has something valid to say, not too many are going to hear it given his tone.
We have better things to do with our time than to be offended by some immature foul mouthed gasbag with an overblown ego.
Aaaw, carl, you're so full of crap! It's so *cute*. Only ever turning up to obsess over me, never to add anything of your own. And it's not like you have supported or negated or even critqued artless here. You just HAD to talk about me!
It's like your life is empty, isn't it.
But you made it that way. Never mind.
"My approach is to skip over posts starting with Wow;"
Of course, this is the ONLY way to learn!
Well, not really, but it's the only way you'll never learn of discouraging truths, so that's just as good.
And Carl et al will be the FIRST to whinge at scientists for not being "open minded". After all, it's the presentation that counts, not the logic in the argument!
"Even if he has something valid to say, not too many are going to hear it given his tone."
Well, apart from thought policing here, this is just admitting to tone trolling, along with an admission that they're closed minded on the unimportant issues they face. And presupposes that his attitude is nearly everyone's attitude.
Which is kinda bullshit.
But hey if you're going with bad ideas, it's a tried-and-true method to pretend you're with a lot of them. See the "But billions of people believe in god!" "proof".
Not forgetting that even if it were true, it's a great way to bury the wootards who try to leap on any platform to spew their half-digested thoughts on everyone else.
So, win-win for honest brokers, really. Including me!
Consider this. What if Art's bullshit posting here were to be "countered" with entirely skipping whatever art says in the future? Good move or bad? How about if Carls whinging means people just skip past, "knowing" it will only be whining about me existing. Sensible or bigoted? How about that moronic retard who told Mike to stop taking other people's data and do the work himself to investigate elementary particle physics? Ignore everything posted under that idiot's name? Right or wrong?
Not forgetting that even if it were true, it’s a great way to bury the wootards who try to leap on any platform to spew their half-digested thoughts on everyone else.
So, win-win for honest brokers, really. Including me!
You've just cluttered up the joint with five essentially identical, pissy, self-satisfied comments that add nothing whatever. I've had the killfile off lately for another reason, but that situation has been rectified.
"You’ve just cluttered up the joint with five essentially "
I know! Great, innit!
And it's OK because most people won't read and just skip past! If you join in, we can bury Art and Carl off into the backlands, no problem!
One of those five, though was a response to SL, so either letting him know there's no problem with forgetting about time dilation is essentially pointless, or you meant four.
And before that was a point that SL had forgotten, mentioned by me, so SL had clearly read it, and it was also both pertinent and well mannered. Mostly because SL had approached his claim from a viable standpoint and not a load of self-aggrandising bullshit, nor a pointless thought police raid on the use of rude words to reliably and clearly relate the personal opinions held of another poster.
In short, SL was comporting themselves like a honest broker in a science discussion on a blog and was treated with clarity and fairness.
Art, carl and the other dude, not so much.
Also, Narad, what's "pissy, self-satisfied comments that add nothing whatever" about #94?
What did Art and Carl add? Yours? But don't answer that, it was rhetorical.
Care to tell me what was pissy or self-satisfied about #94? Do you insist that asking questions about auto-ignoring posts because of *who said it* is worthless, adding nothing to a discussion about at least querying scientific discoveries, if not the methodology of just plain platonic discussion itself?
And if I blocked you because of who you post as, is that a good thing? Should you be happy with that? Would you change your mind because I threatened to do that? Would you expect me to think you would? These are follow-ups to the #94, so maybe you think it pissy and self satisfied, adding nothing, but then if I disagree,why should I care you block me or skip past?