Thief
Rogue Theologian
you did?....oh yeah...so you didwhich is what I said...
looked like....lol
has anyone come out on top about gravity waves?
did I miss it?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
you did?....oh yeah...so you didwhich is what I said...
Yeah, they were detected confirming Einsteins theory.you did?....oh yeah...so you did
looked like....lol
has anyone come out on top about gravity waves?
did I miss it?
That had nothing to do with the speed of light or SR or GR.a recent science documentary about two guys building on Albert's work....
turns out....Albert referred to his own effort as.....
his greatest blunder
but you should know that......
and all motion is relative......That had nothing to do with the speed of light or SR or GR.
He referred to what we today call the cosmological constant. He removed it or added it (don't remember which) without any explanation because he didn't like it. It has to do with the expansion of the universe, not the speed of light. It was in relation to the work on the universe and it's geometrical shape and expansion. This had nothing at all to do with the constancy of speed of light.
But you should know that since you watched a TV show about it.
--edit
"Once Einstein knew the universe was expanding, he discarded the cosmological constant as an unnecessary fudge factor. He later called it the "biggest blunder of his life," according to his fellow physicist George Gamow. Today astronomers refer to one theory of dark energy as Einstein's cosmological constant."
Do you see? It's not about constancy of c.
did you read the article.....?Yeah, they were detected confirming Einsteins theory.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html?_r=0
And? How does "motion is relative" lead to that "Einstein's biggest blunder regarding cosmological constant" would mean the same as "Einstein doubted the constancy of speed of light"?and all motion is relative......
You are free to distrust the experts.did you read the article.....?
as I read it.....some of the claims are a bit fantastic...
seems to me....detecting a disturbance as they detail the event.....
would be less than the beat of a butterflies wings at this distance
I don't believe in g'waves
it will take more than the article you posted to convince me
So, what's your point?and all motion is relative......
already did that....So, what's your point?
No you didn't. You need to answer the following ...already did that....
And? How does "motion is relative" lead to that "Einstein's biggest blunder regarding cosmological constant" would mean the same as "Einstein doubted the constancy of speed of light"?
I am never obligated to follow a leading question.No you didn't. You need to answer the following ...
Fascinating! I haven't been to this forum for a long time, so missed this completely.I don't think so.
According to special relativity, anything that moves at the velocity of light would be frozen
in its own local time. So it could not actually be moving at all from its own perspective.
Motion requires time to move.
So time for the gravity wave would stop. So the gravity wave could not move.
would you like to start a topic thread on Zeno?Fascinating! I haven't been to this forum for a long time, so missed this completely.
Has anybody noticed that this is, in essence, the same argument made by Zeno of Elea for why things cannot move, or why Achilles can never win a race with the tortoise?
Actually, what he has written is a misunderstanding of relativity: there is no reference frame where an object moving at the speed of light is frozen in place (which would be a contradiction anyway, if it's moving at all then it obviously can't be frozen). He actually has it backwards: for an object moving at the speed of light, time would seem to be infinitely sped up such that all events in the universe happen simultaneously.Fascinating! I haven't been to this forum for a long time, so missed this completely.
Has anybody noticed that this is, in essence, the same argument made by Zeno of Elea for why things cannot move, or why Achilles can never win a race with the tortoise?
Fascinating! I haven't been to this forum for a long time, so missed this completely.
Has anybody noticed that this is, in essence, the same argument made by Zeno of Elea for why things cannot move, or why Achilles can never win a race with the tortoise?
Actually, what he has written is a misunderstanding of relativity: there is no reference frame where an object moving at the speed of light is frozen in place (which would be a contradiction anyway, if it's moving at all then it obviously can't be frozen). He actually has it backwards: for an object moving at the speed of light, time would seem to be infinitely sped up such that all events in the universe happen simultaneously.