HEVYDEVY FORUMS

http://www.speed-light.info/angels_speed_of_light.htm


check out this website

its a really long read but its fascinating and i dont quite what to make of it, any comments or analyses from the educated folks around here who can put this into lamens terms ? hahahah

Kewl.

It just proves that science can be also used as a disguise of utter crap. Speed of angels? C'mon!

The only proper reaction to any text trying to mash science and "angels" is rejection. It's like you came into this very expensive restaurant (reference to unrefutable scientific knowledge) and the waiter brings you a hot steaming turd (angels travelling at speed of light) on a golden plate and tries to convince you that the bad smell (of the misconcepted construct) is just in your head (western indoctrination) and that it actually tastes good (makes sense). Well "NO THANK YOU MISTER!" Common sense is not something we should try to overcome, stay away from this kind of nonsense.

Yeah I really hate this shit, I'd have this guy in a gulag doing some constructive work.

Goat wrote:Yeah I really hate this shit

...even if its hot, steaming and on a golden plate?

hmm interesting nonetheless, especially since i've done some university physics (i'm guessing average joe who hasnt done physics wouldnt really have a clue what he's talking about).

i've heard many claims from people talking about how the koran predicted certain things discovered by modern science such as how a human fetus develops i think? defintely curious to see if these claims have any weight to them or whether theyre super extreme interpretations to the koran...

religion may cause a lot of crap but hearing claims like this makes you wonder doesnt it?

You don't even need to get into physics to spot a few glaring errors. For one, the moon orbits the earth more than 12 times a year (every 28 days, not "exactly once a month"). Therefore, C (t) does not equal "12000 V cosø T". Also, removing the Earth's gravitational affect on the Moon for the value of V, then once again both considering it and the Sun for the value of theta (ø) is just silly; you can either include it or ignore it for the entire equation, otherwise you can pretty much get any bullshit numbers to pop out. Which is, of course, what this is all about.
Science is great, because any one of these inconsistencies immediately render the remainder of that insane diatribe invalid, thus saving rational people precious time sifting through the rantings of madmen. If just one aspect of a theory is disproven, the whole theory must be discarded. Religion is quite the opposite, and people who try to rectify matters of faith with matters of theoretical science should really find other hobbies; perhaps something less futile, like running head-first into brick walls, or knitting.
It's like how the Bible says Pi is exactly 3 (in a roundabout way, but it can be inferred), so in the late 19th century, the Indiana House of Representatives passed a measure to consider Pi being 3.0. Nowadays, we can compute Pi to something like 200 BILLION digits, but even back then they knew it accurately to a few hundred. There's something wrong when you can scientifically prove something over and over again, under a multitude of varying conditions, and it never fails... yet some guy quotes a book that claims something else and some people actually think it's worth including in a SCIENTIFIC discussion. See the modern day example: the bullshit psuedo-science of Creationism.
As a nerdy nerd semi-smartypants, it riles me how many people feel the need to stagnate the advancement of science by taking a big, messy, irrational shit in the pool of modern knowledge. Super-speedy angels and the Creation of Earth 6,000 years ago (!) are great for Sunday school, but stay out of the scientific arena; you're slowing everybody down.

you bring up some excellent points, but i thought i'd just throw in a little fact i found out--- apparently in the past little while four professors from the toronto and surrounding area converted to the muslim religion. now im not trying to bash any other religions or advertise for muslim religion (i myself am not a religious person or even closely affiliated with the muslim religion in any way) but you have to admit this is really interesting stuff.

thefillersweetcityjesus wrote:you bring up some excellent points, but i thought i'd just throw in a little fact i found out--- apparently in the past little while four professors from the toronto and surrounding area converted to the muslim religion. now im not trying to bash any other religions or advertise for muslim religion (i myself am not a religious person or even closely affiliated with the muslim religion in any way) but you have to admit this is really interesting stuff.

Oh, I wasn't saying a person who works in the scientific field couldn't simultaneously be a person of deep faith, but it does take a certain amount of distancing oneself from the dogmatic principles inherent with religion to be a valid and objective scientist. You kind of have to include the possibility that God is in fact NOT making people out of clay to be a biologist; if someone is too much of a fundamentalist to even entertain this notion, perhaps theology is more their calling.
Are the four professors in some way connected with the original post's theory? I'd hope that a college professor would notice that a lunar year = 12.0000 months is highly suspect, and the fact that running a bunch of whole numbers picked out of an ancient book through some fairly sketchy equations yields an answer accurate to the eighth magnitude should definitely trip a bright red bullshit alarm in any scholarly mind.
It is an interesting read though, I very much agree with that- it outright proves you can do some silly things with mathematics when you cherry-pick the data and use inconsistent values. It's the sort of thing we should keep in mind when we read any sort of statistics or polling data; you can use valid mathematical principles (such as averaging by use of mean, median, or mode inconsistently) to basically prove something that is in fact false. In these cases, it takes a clever and analytical mind rather than a calculator to point out when the wool is being pulled over the eyes.
I love a good physics thread. We need more of 'em around here.

Well.

Angels as discrete packages of light, that travel at c...

Propulsion? Energy expenditures? An angel going about it's (I'm not gonna impose gender slavery on a lump o' photons, I can tell ye) daily arcane business, when it suddenly finds the need to bugger orf at lightspeed would emit so much energy across most of the spectrum that anyone who'd just completed an "Angel Detector" anywhere in the Inner Solar System would hit paydirt. Dozens of orbital observatories would pick up the signatures instantaneously.

Big Crunch and Einstein-Rosen bridges ("wormholes" to you Trekkers) are still theory, still mathematical constructs until direct measurement confirms or denies. Certainly they are physically allowed within General Relativity, but proof of existence requires something a little more substantial than:

They do not believe the Message, like those who preceded them; Even if We [Allah] opened upon them from the heaven a door and they continued walking through it they would say ‘Our sight is bedazzled, rather we have been bewitched’ It is We [Allah] who have made towering structures in the heavens and made them beautiful for beholders. And We protected them from every evil spirit accursed.

...or NASA would have named a Shuttle after Ezekiel.


Quite interesting in a kinda "Nostradamus" fashion - describe a series of general supernatural statements, and apply recently-learned science to them.
I would sit up and take notice if somebody discovered a passage in the Quran (or Bible or Talmud or Bhagavad Gita) that says, unequivocally:

"The speed of light is 299792.458 km/s in a vacuum."

Coma Divine wrote:Quite interesting in a kinda "Nostradamus" fashion - describe a series of general supernatural statements, and apply recently-learned science to them.
I would sit up and take notice if somebody discovered a passage in the Quran (or Bible or Talmud or Bhagavad Gita) that says, unequivocally:

"The speed of light is 299792.458 km/s in a vacuum."

Couldn't agree more, Coma. I can't really comment on the mathematical/physics-related side of that article, but I know a lot about writing and literature and Nostradamus is the perfect comparison to make here. None of those quotes explicitly state the principles the author's claiming they refer to; religious/prophetic texts are by their very nature highly allegorical and dramatic, and open to a variety of interpretations.

Looking at the article: the quote about the moving of the mountains, for example, has stuff all to do with the shifting of tectonic plates; God's power is often demonstrated in religious texts by physical power over the earth, e.g. 'Let the mountain come to Mohammed', the parting of the Red Sea.

Similarly, the reference to the decrease of atmospheric pressure at high altitude can also be plausibly explained: for a start, the idea of your breathing being restricted is a dramatic metaphor that works very well as a threat against those who are not faithful (Because as we all know, there's nothing those ancient religious types loved seeing more than God fucking up the unbelievers in a varity of unpleasant and gory ways!). As for the sky reference, this can either be part of the metaphor, or something learned from experience; surely by that stage of mankind's development someone must have climbed a mountain, or at least got high enough to notice the change in air quality? What with the spread of human civilizations across the globe, it surely stands to reason that someone found themselves at high altitude at some point and passed their knowledge on.

And the ice comets: well, the people of the time will have seen shooting stars, even been nearby when they crashed into the earth. What with the explosions and craters they leave, you could understand it being translated into mountains hurled around by God that impact with a blinding flash. As for the ice, it's possible that some found ice around fresh impact craters, but it's more likely a piece of unwittingly spot-on creative license derived from the whiteness of the shooting stars in the sky.

At the end of the day these quotes prove nothing but the desperation of the author(s) to turn people to their way of thinking (It's times like this that make me glad to be agnostic!). You can throw as many equations at it as you like, it's still doesn't hold water. But thanks for posting the link filler, I can use that page for research for the novel I'm working on