Update on Flight 718/June 16, 2011 (PHL‐FCO)

[Piedmont1984]

Who's closer? Who measured the distances? Are they moving relative to either/both/all of you or I or the asteroid? What is between you, I, the person doing the measuring, and the asteroid? The speed of light being constant is the easy part. The bending of space/time to achieve the effect is the hard part. In fact, a single observer can measure differing values for the speed of light if he's in the presence of a massive object - like a black hole. If you're falling into a black hole, the light that's falling in ahead of you appears to be going faster than the speed of light while light falling in behind you appears to be going slower - both relative to you, a single observer.

What amazes me is not the conclusions people like Einstein or Hawkins come up with but that they come up with them using little but their minds.

Jim

I stated the question poorly. You and I are next to each other. You are travelling at light speed. I am stationary. We both shine our flashlight at the same object in the distance. Both beams should illuminate the object at the same time. Or to put it differently, an observer on that object should see two beams of light arrive at the same time. No?

 

[Move2CLT]

You also have to throw in the possibility that the speed of light is not a universal constant as Einstein hypothesized. There is some evidence to suggest that the speed of light, which can be classified a physical property, has been slowing down since the dawn of Creation (or at least since the fall of mankind in the Garden of Eden). If confirmed, this means that the speed of light is also subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamic: Entropy. If the speed of light isn't a universal constant, then a whole host of scientific models and assumptions, including the presumed age of the universe, could become untenable. So, measuring both the actual speed of light and the perceived speed of light as seen by the observer adds even more challenges to this little hypothetical brain exercise.

Amazing how one can mess up perfectly good science with religion. Those two cannot coexist.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Amazing how one can mess up perfectly good science with religion. Those two cannot coexist.

Of course they can co-exist. If both are based on the unbiased pursuit of the truth then they will both lead to the same conclusions as I have shown here previously. The problem is that science all too often not based on the basic scientific principles of
1) Hypothesis
2) Observe/Experiment
3) Test to disprove hypothesis
4) Independent and verifiable repeatably

Because science often does not hold to its own principles we get errors and ought right frauds like:
A firmly held belief that the earth is flat (the Bible says otherwise long before science caught up)

That someone could count the number of stars which was once assumed to be about 6,000 (the Bible says otherwise long before science caught up)

The speed of light is infinite

The universe is infinite (the Bible says otherwise long before science caught up)

Mold spontaneously generates from food; rats spontaneously generate from trash; fruit flies spontaneously generate from fruit; and life spontaneously generates from assumed building blocks which require materials to exist in environments for which there is no evidence and even if it did it would require thousands of compounded statistical miracles to be believed.

"Piltdown Man" was discovered to be a human skull treated with iron to make it appear old

"Nebraska Man" was later determined to be just an extinct pig's tooth

"Java Man" was determined to be a deliberate fraud based on orangutan teeth

"Scientists" planted fake lynx fur in WA to advance their liberal agenda and receive federal tax dollars for their work.

And don't even get me started on the multiple global warming manipulation of facts to advance that agenda.

Science has been wrong more often than it has been right, even when it claims something to be a "fact". Once true and verifiable facts are known, they always align with the biblical model. So, there is no need to keep the two areas separate. Both can and do coexist in a world based on facts.

 

[yoyodyne]

Of course they can co-exist. If both are based on the unbiased pursuit of the truth then they will both lead to the same conclusions as I have shown here previously. The problem is that science all too often not based on the basic scientific principles of
1) Hypothesis
2) Observe/Experiment
3) Test to disprove hypothesis
4) Independent and verifiable repeatably

Because science often does not hold to its own principles we get errors and ought right fraud like:
A firmly held belief that the earth is flat (the Bible says otherwise long before science caught up)

That someone could count the number of stars which was once assumed to be about 6,000 (the Bible says otherwise long before science caught up)

The speed of light is infinite

The universe is infinite (the Bible says otherwise long before science caught up)

Mold spontaneously generates from food; rats spontaneously generate from trash; fruit flies spontaneously generates from fruit; and life spontaneously generates from assumed building blocks which require materials to exist in environments for which there is no evidence and even if it did it would require thousands of compounded statistical miracles to be believed.

"Piltdown Man" was discovered to be a human skull treated with iron to make it appear old

"Nebraska Man" was later determined to be just an extinct pigs tooth

"Java Man" was determined to be a deliberate fraud based on orangutan teeth

"Scientists" planted lynx fake fur in WA to advance their liberal agenda and receive federal tax dollars for their work.

And don't even get me started on the multiple global warming manipulation of facts to advance that agenda.

Science has been wrong more often than it has been right, even when it claims something to be a "fact". Once true and verifiable facts are know, they always align with the biblical model. So, there is no need to keep the two areas separate. Both can and do coexist in a world based on facts.

tl;dr

Now re-adjust your tinfoil hat please, it seems that its lose, and you are having inklings of rational thought..


Like the quote in Top Gun, I hope you are good at your Job, because critical thinking is definitely not your forte.

 

[CallawayGolf]

tl;dr

Now re-adjust your tinfoil hat please, it seems that its lose, and you are having inklings of rational thought..


Like the quote in Top Gun, I hope you are good at your Job, because critical thinking is definitely not your forte.

By all means please tell me which thought is not rational or not backed up by verifiable facts? The stage is yours, let's see what you've got.

 

[yoyodyne]

By all means please tell me which thought is not rational or not backed up by verifiable facts? The stage is yours, let's see what you've got.

If it doesn't follow the guidelines of the scientific method, then its not science, but "pseudo-science", a fact that faux news often forgets.

Just because unscrupulous individuals engage in fraud, it does not mean that science as a whole is a fraud. Fraud can occur in any endeavor where humans are involved. While I am no historian, I bet I could also dig up cases where " religion" was debased by fraudulent individuals; does that make religion as a whole a fraud?

And lastly, the old "global warming is fake" argument is getting old, when the vast majority of reputable scientist agree that there is human induced climate change. So we are going to split hairs about how much will the sea level rise?

 

[CallawayGolf]

If it doesn't follow the guidelines of the scientific method, then its not science, but "pseudo-science", a fact that faux news often forgets.

Just because unscrupulous individuals engage in fraud, it does not mean that science as a whole is a fraud. Fraud can occur in any endeavor where humans are involved. While I am no historian, I bet I could also dig up cases where " religion" was debased by fraudulent individuals; does that make religion as a whole a fraud?

And lastly, the old "global warming is fake" argument is getting old, when the vast majority of reputable scientist agree that there is human induced climate change. So we are going to split hairs about how much will the sea level rise?

All human endeavors are subject to error, fraud and a misinterpretation of the facts. It can and does happen with any source of news, science and the multitude of religious believes that are not founded on a standard of truth. I think we agree on that.

So scientists manipulating data and intentionally omitting temperature data from certain tracking stations because the readings don't fit their hypothesis doesn't bother you so long its done for the greater good? But let's set the scientific fraud incidents aside for just a moment and for the sake of argument say that the earth is genuinely getting warmer. How can science objectively and scientifically prove that it is human activity which is causing the warming effect? Can they isolate the effect of the sun and it's natural slide toward entropy or its natural gaseous emissions, solar flares, so that the only constant which remains is human-caused? Can scientists stop volcanic activity long enough to isolate that source carbon emissions so that human activity can be shown to be the cause? Since volcanic and oceanic sources account for something like 97% or more of all "greenhouse gases" how can humans make a substantial impact on the total if we control less than 3% of the total? So, even if true, claiming humans are the singular cause of of temperature variations is incredibly arrogant and fundamentally misleading.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I stated the question poorly. You and I are next to each other. You are travelling at light speed. I am stationary. We both shine our flashlight at the same object in the distance. Both beams should illuminate the object at the same time. Or to put it differently, an observer on that object should see two beams of light arrive at the same time. No?

In that scenerio, yes. There could be minor differences due to massive objects between us and the asteroid due to the simple fact that we can't occupy the same space at the same time so the light beams don't originate at exactly the same point, or because the difference in our speed (the speed of light) makes it impossible to turn our lights on at exactly the same time, but in 99.999999% of the cases the two beams would be seen by the observer on the asteroid at the same time. At least that's what Einstein said and within mankind's speed capabilities it's held true so far.

Jim

 

[Piedmont1984]

In that scenerio, yes. There could be minor differences due to massive objects between us and the asteroid due to the simple fact that we can't occupy the same space at the same time so the light beams don't originate at exactly the same point, or because the difference in our speed (the speed of light) makes it impossible to turn our lights on at exactly the same time, but in 99.999999% of the cases the two beams would be seen by the observer on the asteroid at the same time. At least that's what Einstein said and within mankind's speed capabilities it's held true so far.

Jim

Thank you. Which means that you, the traveller, would arrive at the object at the same time as well. My beam, your beam and your celestial chariot would reach the object simultaneously. Which further means that what you observe, from your position on the chariot travelling at light speed, when you turn on your flashlight - is nothing.

 

[yoyodyne]

All human endeavors are subject to error, fraud and a misinterpretation of the facts. It can and does happen with any source of news, science and the multitude of religious believes that are not founded on a standard of truth. I think we agree on that.

So scientists manipulating data and intentionally omitting temperature data from certain tracking stations because the readings don't fit their hypothesis doesn't bother you so long its done for the greater good? But let's set the scientific fraud incidents aside for just a moment and for the sake of argument say that the earth is genuinely getting warmer. How can science objectively and scientifically prove that it is human activity which is causing the warming effect? Can they isolate the effect of the sun and it's natural slide toward entropy or its natural gaseous emissions, solar flares, so that the only constant which remains is human-caused? Can scientists stop volcanic activity long enough to isolate that source carbon emissions so that human activity can be shown to be the cause? Since volcanic and oceanic sources account for something like 97% or more of all "greenhouse gases" how can humans make a substantial impact on the total if we control less than 3% of the total? So, even if true, claiming humans are the singular cause of of temperature variations is incredibly arrogant and fundamentally misleading.

Again, science is done by consensus. For something to be taken for a fact, it has to be able to be replicated. Take for example the cold fusion fiasco. Since the premise and experiments were not able to be verifiable reproduced by independent sources, we don't have "cold fusion", it does not exists.

I was unaware that besides being a pilot, you were also a climate scientist. I for one, am not a theoretical physicist, so I would tread lightly when discussing issues like string theory, QCD, and things I have a little fundamental knowledge, but not enough to criticize the way in which the research is conducted. I am sure that climatology, and the scientists who work in the field, have ways of measuring, and accounting for all the "objections" you have about the research. Just because something can't be seen doesn't mean it does not occur, case in point, Albert Einstein was able to come up with general and special relativity, all without physically riding in trains travelling at or near the speed of light; but thru thought experiments.

When was the last time you let a ramp agent tell you at what speed or altitude, flight is more efficient in those hideous Airbii (see we all have biases)?

I like how when pressed about (the pillaging of) natural resources, most conservatives will take the anthropocentric view of things, i.e. " we are the masters of this domain"; but when it comes to global climate change, the opposite is true..

 

[CallawayGolf]

Again, science is done by consensus. For something to be taken for a fact, it has to be able to be replicated. Take for example the cold fusion fiasco. Since the premise and experiments were not able to be verifiable reproduced by independent sources, we don't have "cold fusion", it does not exists.

I was unaware that besides being a pilot, you were also a climate scientist. I for one, am not a theoretical physicist, so I would tread lightly when discussing issues like string theory, QCD, and things I have a little fundamental knowledge, but not enough to criticize the way in which the research is conducted. I am sure that climatology, and the scientists who work in the field, have ways of measuring, and accounting for all the "objections" you have about the research. Just because something can't be seen doesn't mean it does not occur, case in point, Albert Einstein was able to come up with general and special relativity, all without physically riding in trains travelling at or near the speed of light; but thru thought experiments.

When was the last time you let a ramp agent tell you at what speed or altitude, flight is more efficient in those hideous Airbii (see we all have biases)?

I like how when pressed about (the pillaging of) natural resources, most conservatives will take the anthropocentric view of things, i.e. " we are the masters of this domain"; but when it comes to global climate change, the opposite is true..

Just because certain sciences and scientists believe that consensus is the same thing as "proof" doesn't mean they are correct. There once was a consensus that the earth was flat, but even 100% consensus didn't equal truth then and it still doesn't mean that now. They would like you to believe that they are correct and everyone else is wrong, but that ploy only works on the gullible and misinformed.

Charles Lyell got a lot of things wrong in his theory on uniformitarianism as way of explaining geological formations but that didn't stop people like Charles Darwin from building upon his work. Charles Darwin got a lot of things wrong in his book, "The Origin of Species and the Preservation of the Most Favored Races" (especially that last part don't you think), but being wrong didn't prevent a multitude of other "scientists" from building upon his faulty foundations. So the lies, false science, and misinformation continues because few are willing to challenge consensus thinking and return to a search for objective truths.

The same holds true, yet again, on global climate change. A multitude of lies, frauds, false assumptions form the basis for this junk science and yet few have the guts to challenge the faulty consensus so the public deception continues. And this is not just an academic error that has no impact on the lives of non-scientists; rather these purveyors of misinformation are after people's and the government's pocketbooks; and the more nefarious members want to see capitalism and industrialism destroyed based on fabricated information (that would be wrong don't you think?). If human activity cannot cause or correct the effects of the global climate, then the public at large is being played for fools under the guise of inventing a false crisis and then having science set themselves up as the only hope people have for survival. Total balderdash.

Mankind has a responsibility to be good stewards of our planet. We shouldn't be dumping toxic waste into sources of potable water or leaving raw sewage in the streets for children to play in. We shouldn't cut down every tree in the forest without a management and sustainability plan for these renewable resources. We have the responsibility to make sound and reasonable environmental decisions for our nation and our planet wherever possible. Climate change does not fall into the same category as these other tangible issues. There is no need to eliminate CFCs to protect the ozone layer if those same CFCs cannot possibly reach to the height on the ozone in the first place. Mankind does not need to stop being productive and industrialized to keep the planet from getting too warm if ceasing all human activity wouldn't change the real or perceived issues with temperature increases. It's just a manufactured crisis designed to wrestle money and power away from one group so that a group of frauds can be self enriched.

Don't buy into their lies. Make the Al Gore worshipers prove that their fear-based and junk science is correct or just stop listening to them. Don;t let them have any more of your money or our fundamental freedoms as Americans until they can proof their science is sound - don't worry, it's not.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Man of the cloth? Well said. and, I mean it. There is evidence of faster than light (instantaneous communication between daughter particles), in several cases exploited by migratory animals to sense direction, something we cannot yet duplicate (from a lecture at MIT).

Life is much more interesting (to me) than what we see on "the news".

Yes, the daughter particles. Already proven that they communicate with each other instantly with no regard to the distance between them. Flip one, and the other flips at the same time, even if it is light years away. Quantum physics, which Einstein thought was so much hooey, has proven that.

Amazing how one can mess up perfectly good science with religion. Those two cannot coexist.

Good science and good religion certainly can and do co-exist very well. Good science and fundamentalist religion, on the other hand, cannot co-exist peacefully, since fundamentalist religion assumes they have all the answers, no matter what science proves.

The Dalai Lama has stated that if science disproves a tenet of Buddhism, then Buddhism must change.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Many times, change in scientific "facts" occurs because there are those that question the current concensus or advances in technology make measurements, observations, testing, etc more accurate and that disproves the old theories. There was a time when the consensus was that everything was composed of four "elements" - earth, fire, wind, water I think. Those who promoted that consensus weren't lying or trying to benefit from a gullible public. They were just using what was available at the time - their eyes.

Then there was the consensus that the atom was the smallest piece of matter possible. No lies or seeking funding from a gullible public, just what they were able to observe or measure with the tools available at the time.

Then the electron, neutron, and proton were discovered, thanks to better tools and methods.

Now there's a pleathora of even smaller particles observed & measured or theorized. Doesn't mean those that had believed otherwise were liars, charlatans, or whatever.

Einstein theorized that time slowed as speed increased, and did it at a time when the maximum speed achievable by mankind was in the hundreds of mph - too slow to measure the effect he theorized. Today, much higher speeds are possible and his theory has been proven - the GPS in your car maintains it's accuracy because the GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted several times a day to correct for their slower passage of time because of the satellites speed - just as Einstein theorized. Will that change in the future? Who knows - it's the best we have today but the future will bring new methods of testing the effect.

Heck, Mars was thought to have canals and thus intelligent life not that long ago but better telescopes cast doubt on that and still later satellites and landers proved it to be false. Not a lie because it was the best theory for what was able to be observed at the time, but wrong.

That has been the history of true science - advancement in fits and starts as technology advanced.

Jim

 

[CallawayGolf]

Good science and good religion certainly can and do co-exist very well. Good science and fundamentalist religion, on the other hand, cannot co-exist peacefully, since fundamentalist religion assumes they have all the answers, no matter what science proves.

The Dalai Lama has stated that if science disproves a tenet of Buddhism, then Buddhism must change.

So you propose that all religious believes should be subordinated to scientific theory even if that theory has yet to be proven? That requires a lot of faith in highly fallible and often unscrupulous human beings if you ask me. Snake oil and liver pill salesmen must love coming to your door.

Don't you think it would be better for truth seekers of all persuasions to objectively investigate and explore all truth claims before reaching a decision? That way if you find a truth claim that can be proven to be unquestionably false, you can ignore it. Likewise, if you find verifiable truths, whatever their source, why would you ignore them? That's what Huge Ross did. He has a PhD astronomy and astrophysics and he set out to objectively claim that every religious belief was based on false or unsubstantiated beliefs. He found that every religious system, except for those based on the Old and New Testaments, must be discounted because they make false truth claims. What he found in the Bible, however, were fully accurate and substantiated truth claims that perfectly matched with what science affirms. His study lead him to be a believer in the God of the Bible (he wasn't before) because he used his scientific knowledge to objectively validate and or reject statements about religious faith. Now he and I would likely differ on a great many interpretative things, but I applaud his willingness to follow the truth wherever it took him.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Many times, change in scientific "facts" occurs because there are those that question the current concensus or advances in technology make measurements, observations, testing, etc more accurate and that disproves the old theories. There was a time when the consensus was that everything was composed of four "elements" - earth, fire, wind, water I think. Those who promoted that consensus weren't lying or trying to benefit from a gullible public. They were just using what was available at the time - their eyes.

Then there was the consensus that the atom was the smallest piece of matter possible. No lies or seeking funding from a gullible public, just what they were able to observe or measure with the tools available at the time.

Then the electron, neutron, and proton were discovered, thanks to better tools and methods.

Now there's a pleathora of even smaller particles observed & measured or theorized. Doesn't mean those that had believed otherwise were liars, charlatans, or whatever.

Einstein theorized that time slowed as speed increased, and did it at a time when the maximum speed achievable by mankind was in the hundreds of mph - too slow to measure the effect he theorized. Today, much higher speeds are possible and his theory has been proven - the GPS in your car maintains it's accuracy because the GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted several times a day to correct for their slower passage of time because of the satellites speed - just as Einstein theorized. Will that change in the future? Who knows - it's the best we have today but the future will bring new methods of testing the effect.

Heck, Mars was thought to have canals and thus intelligent life not that long ago but better telescopes cast doubt on that and still later satellites and landers proved it to be false. Not a lie because it was the best theory for what was able to be observed at the time, but wrong.

That has been the history of true science - advancement in fits and starts as technology advanced.

Jim

I don't disagree with your assessment. Of course an astronomer who may have held a more biblical view of the number of stars versus the consensus thought of say 6,000 stars prior to the sixteenth century would have been the subject of ridicule, torture, loss of position/respect and possibly even death. This culture of intimidation was commonplace for daring to challenge the scientific thought of the day until Galileo produced a telescope that proved all previous consensus thought on the subject was vastly incorrect. The problem is not with the scientific tools available at any given point in history, but with the scientific community that seeks to suppress truth in favor of peer pressure and enforced conformity. While we may not see many subjected to threats of death today, we do see people's careers destroyed for daring to question evolution, origin science, or global warming. Going against the grain and daring to seek truth is still not a very safe thing to do in those circles even today.