• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Is Technocracy compatible with our faith?

MemeFan said:
Because Einstein was often right.
Click to expand...
Keep telling yourself that!

MemeFan said:
If quantum theory guys have taken Eistein seriously, then would find non-locality phenomena 4 decades earlier.
Click to expand...
If scientists would listen to Barry Setterfield and Dr. Peter Moore, it would erase 100 years of confusion.
 
Heavens Declare said:
If scientists would listen to Barry Setterfield... it would erase 100 years of confusion.
Click to expand...

Setterfield destroyed his credibility with his nonsensical c-decay hypothesis that the speed of light is not a constant and instead that C is constantly slowing.

Which it is not.

It has been repeatedly measured by numerous people across the decades as 3×108 m/s

No decay or slowing of any kind has been measured by anyone.

It was 299,792,458 m/s in 1900 and it remains so.

If it has decayed from "millions of times faster" then that decay would be measurable even now.

Ergo, no one cares what Setterfield had to say.

Also, you can see what the speed of light is for yourself at home:

Using a microwave oven to measure the speed of light:
  • Setup: Remove the microwave's turntable to keep it stationary. Place a bar of chocolate or a layer of mini-marshmallows on a plate inside.
  • Process: Heat for a short time (e.g., 10–15 seconds) until specific spots begin to melt, then stop.
  • Measurement: Measure the distance between the centers of the melted spots. This distance represents half the wavelength. Multiply by 2 to get the full wavelength.
  • Calculation: Find the microwave's frequency on its label (typically 2,450 MHz or 2.45×109 Hz). Calculate speed using c=wavelength×frequency.
  • Result: This typically yields a result close to 294,000,000 m/s (compared to the actual ~299,792,458 m/s).
 
MeganC said:
Setterfield destroyed his credibility with his nonsensical c-decay hypothesis that the speed of light is not a constant and instead that C is constantly slowing.

Which it is not.

It has been repeatedly measured by numerous people across the decades as 3×108 m/s

No decay or slowing of any kind has been measured by anyone.

It was 299,792,458 m/s in 1900 and it remains so.

If it has decayed from "millions of times faster" then that decay would be measurable even now.

Ergo, no one cares what Setterfield had to say.

Also, you can see what the speed of light is for yourself at home:

Using a microwave oven to measure the speed of light:
  • Setup: Remove the microwave's turntable to keep it stationary. Place a bar of chocolate or a layer of mini-marshmallows on a plate inside.
  • Process: Heat for a short time (e.g., 10–15 seconds) until specific spots begin to melt, then stop.
  • Measurement: Measure the distance between the centers of the melted spots. This distance represents half the wavelength. Multiply by 2 to get the full wavelength.
  • Calculation: Find the microwave's frequency on its label (typically 2,450 MHz or 2.45×109 Hz). Calculate speed using c=wavelength×frequency.
  • Result: This typically yields a result close to 294,000,000 m/s (compared to the actual ~299,792,458 m/s).
Click to expand...
I love you so much. You can be such good girl. 😘
 
MeganC said:
Using a microwave oven to measure the speed of light:
  • Setup: Remove the microwave's turntable to keep it stationary. Place a bar of chocolate or a layer of mini-marshmallows on a plate inside.
  • Process: Heat for a short time (e.g., 10–15 seconds) until specific spots begin to melt, then stop.
  • Measurement: Measure the distance between the centers of the melted spots. This distance represents half the wavelength. Multiply by 2 to get the full wavelength.
  • Calculation: Find the microwave's frequency on its label (typically 2,450 MHz or 2.45×109 Hz). Calculate speed using c=wavelength×frequency.
  • Result: This typically yields a result close to 294,000,000 m/s (compared to the actual ~299,792,458 m/s).
Click to expand...
Did you try this?
 
Heavens Declare said:
I hate articles that sit behind pay walls!
Click to expand...
I looked up what you mean by paywall. Sorry for inconvenience. I discovered the article by putting it through Google search. I will try to summarize next time. A paywall is a digital system that blocks internet users from viewing website content, news articles, or app features unless they buy a paid subscription or make a one-time purchase.
 
MeganC said:
Setterfield destroyed his credibility with his nonsensical c-decay hypothesis that the speed of light is not a constant and instead that C is constantly slowing.

Which it is not.

It has been repeatedly measured by numerous people across the decades as 3×108 m/s

No decay or slowing of any kind has been measured by anyone.

It was 299,792,458 m/s in 1900 and it remains so.

If it has decayed from "millions of times faster" then that decay would be measurable even now.

Ergo, no one cares what Setterfield had to say.

Also, you can see what the speed of light is for yourself at home:

Using a microwave oven to measure the speed of light:
  • Setup: Remove the microwave's turntable to keep it stationary. Place a bar of chocolate or a layer of mini-marshmallows on a plate inside.
  • Process: Heat for a short time (e.g., 10–15 seconds) until specific spots begin to melt, then stop.
  • Measurement: Measure the distance between the centers of the melted spots. This distance represents half the wavelength. Multiply by 2 to get the full wavelength.
  • Calculation: Find the microwave's frequency on its label (typically 2,450 MHz or 2.45×109 Hz). Calculate speed using c=wavelength×frequency.
  • Result: This typically yields a result close to 294,000,000 m/s (compared to the actual ~299,792,458 m/s).
Click to expand...
Whoa. You both lost me. I’ll let you both argue this one out.
 
MemeFan said:
I love you so much. You can be such good girl. 😘
Click to expand...
Well she is widowed. If you hadn't gone off on that tangent about criminals, you might make a good match, but considering how insensitive you were to her opening up about the abuse she endured, you might have some work to do there.
 
MeganC said:
Setterfield destroyed his credibility with his nonsensical c-decay hypothesis that the speed of light is not a constant and instead that C is constantly slowing.

Which it is not.

It has been repeatedly measured by numerous people across the decades as 3×108 m/s

No decay or slowing of any kind has been measured by anyone.

It was 299,792,458 m/s in 1900 and it remains so.

If it has decayed from "millions of times faster" then that decay would be measurable even now.

Ergo, no one cares what Setterfield had to say.

Also, you can see what the speed of light is for yourself at home:

Using a microwave oven to measure the speed of light:
  • Setup: Remove the microwave's turntable to keep it stationary. Place a bar of chocolate or a layer of mini-marshmallows on a plate inside.
  • Process: Heat for a short time (e.g., 10–15 seconds) until specific spots begin to melt, then stop.
  • Measurement: Measure the distance between the centers of the melted spots. This distance represents half the wavelength. Multiply by 2 to get the full wavelength.
  • Calculation: Find the microwave's frequency on its label (typically 2,450 MHz or 2.45×109 Hz). Calculate speed using c=wavelength×frequency.
  • Result: This typically yields a result close to 294,000,000 m/s (compared to the actual ~299,792,458 m/s).
Click to expand...
The C-Decay theory originated from historical observations regarding the speed of light. Also, the evidence he presents is the quantized redshift in stars, often within the same galaxy. You should not dismiss it, without gaining a fuller understanding of the mechanism he is describing.
 
Heavens Declare said:
Keep telling yourself that!


If scientists would listen to Barry Setterfield and Dr. Peter Moore, it would erase 100 years of confusion.
Click to expand...

Lets do Einstein's thought experiment. I'm talking from memory, so I'm 99% certain it goes like this.

Let's put photon thought slit. Well, it will hit the board behind slit as as wave. What we can't know is what point of board it will hit because we talking about about millions of potential waves.

When we measure the wave, we find out what exactly point it will hit, it's wavelenght, amplitude etc.... It also implies all other potential waves will be destroyed. Or collapse to zero.

This is standard physics so far. Einstein asked himself how fast measured wave informes collapsing waves to collapse? Empirically known, instantly.

So speed of information is infinitive (which instant transfer of information implies). Yea, do you see slight problem? Nothing is faster than speed of light. Uuuuuuppppppsssssss.

So Einstein took on what is considered best scientific theory Ever in history of mankind, did some thinking and found issue. Mark of genius.

And I will consider his opinion greater than any of your physics proof, simply because probability of genius being right is practically infinite versus you being right.
 
Heavens Declare said:
The C-Decay theory originated from historical observations regarding the speed of light. Also, the evidence he presents is the quantized redshift in stars, often within the same galaxy. You should not dismiss it, without gaining a fuller understanding of the mechanism he is describing.
Click to expand...
Local redshift is already explained by Doppler effect. And Doppler is known to affect all electromagnetic waves. Which light is.

So guy takes evidence for already known effect and we claim that's evidence for his own theory.

Get serious. What new physical pheromena did he predict? Did someone test them?

Also, there is another implication. All EM wave travel as same speed. So if light is slowing, then all EM must slow does. And yes, this includes radar waves, infrared light, X-rays etc... So this phenomena would be widespread and well known because engineers would need for their work.

Satelite navigation already must include relativistic effects so that your mobile can show your correct location. Do you know large mistake would be if calculation didn't take relativistic effects? 10km per day. So it would become unusable inside 2/3 hours.


Yet, none of engineering textbooks mention issues with slowing light speed. Well, it doesn't happen.

Do you realize, if you were right, ask judge to throw out your speeding ticket if police used too old speedometer. Yea, becase speedometer would be innacurate.
 
And this is why I don't consider Hydro Plate theory as serious theory. You throw out some idea which breaks known physics in about other dozens places. And what is explanation for this?

If it would be serious, it would reproduce existing physics without issues and found new phenonema. Just like Eistein did. And quantum mechanics (Bohr and rest) guys did.

And Stephen Wolfram ideas are serious, well according to him, he was able to reproduce both relativity and quantim mechanics. I must add I didn't for years follow Wolfram's work.

This is how serious scientists work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top