Religious fundamentalist lays groundworks for faster-than-light travel!

[Aroddo]

@El_Machinae exactly. the speed of light is constant everywhere.

@Ziggy_Stardust Light always travels in a straight line. However, if space-time is curved, we perceive light as traveling on a curve. the event horizon is the place where space-time is curved so much that the "straight" path light is traveling is perceived as a spiral ending in the center of the black hole.

Sin version a) would have an event horizon much closer to the center of a black hole, which would be a terrific opportunity to examine these cosmic enigmas.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

@Aroddo (who needs quote tags?) Ah, spiraling down towards, that does make sense. I was thrown off by the word orbit.

 

[Aroddo]

@Ziggy_Stardust yeah, i used that word wrongly.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ziggy underscore Stardust. How formal

 

[Aroddo]

RESPECT!

 

[Gori the Grey]

Not even the part where you - I'll assume inadvertently - imply the Euchite heresy is correct.

Heavens, yes, inadvertently! Even with the Wiki cheat sheet I can't think what I said to associate myself with such a damnable crew.

 

[timtofly]

A supernatural alien life form, then. No proof against it.

Even humans are considered Aliens.

From a point in space where it was traveling at that time it didn't slow down. From a point in space (on Earth for instance) it did slow down since it moved in a piece of space traveling away from us.\

It's all about where you place your point of reference.

Just like the bowling ball you're about to talk about is taking longer in reducing the distance between you and the ball as you move away from it.

Are we playing God's advocate?

Do photons actually ever stop moving or arrive? If the bowling ball acted like an actual photon it would just leave a hole in your flesh and keep moving. I get the point that space may be expanding faster than the photons are moving, and that seems to give them the sense of "slowing" down.

My question is: Do the different wavelengths come inherent with light itself, or do they only exist in relationship with other particles?

We do not hear much about it, but it has been hypothesized that not only space is expanding, but even the smallest quarks may also be proportionally expanding as well.

Why? You can travel at the speed of light, theoretically. Nothing in the bible states that you can't travel with the speed of Sin. Maybe Sin achieves it speed because it simply travels in another sinmension.

Don't be ri-sindiculous, humans would just slow sin down. The bible does say that you can take a thought captive. It would seem that if you tried to use sin it would not be free to keep on propagating. At the least humans would charge for it, it is rarely free.

 

[warpus]

"up to (the point in time or the event mentioned)."
Which means that UNTIL you decide upon it, there's nothing immoral going on.

And I get that you really, really want something absolutely evil to have happened in Cambodia.

But UNTIL you did so, there was nothing immoral about any of his actions. There was not an immoral act, UNTIL you decided so. So UNTIL that point, why did you want to label evil what had been amoral beforehand?

I've had enough of your BS.

Can you please stop misrepresenting my position and attacking strawmen? I'm sure it makes your argument easier to defend, but it isn't really doing you any favours.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over and pretending that you don't understand what I'm saying. Good for you I guess, I hope you're having fun. It's not really making you look like somebody I'd ever want to engage in conversation again.

 

[Mouthwash]

I've had enough of your BS.

Can you please stop misrepresenting my position and attacking strawmen? I'm sure it makes your argument easier to defend, but it isn't really doing you any favours.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over and pretending that you don't understand what I'm saying. Good for you I guess, I hope you're having fun. It's not really making you look like somebody I'd ever want to engage in conversation again.

I'm not actually sure what either of your positions are.

 

[Arakhor]

Drakes equation is absolute rubbish and has nothing to do with Science. It is full of unknowns and unknowables, which somehow makes it scientific. :crazyeyes:

That sounds like an excellent description of the intelligent design movement too.

 

[Aroddo]

I'm not actually sure what either of your positions are.

Oh, I think I have distilled their positions quite nicely.

Warpus beliefes in a) Sin travels faster than light. *
Also, he objects to Sin being an absolute cosmic constant, insisting that Sin is merely sin - a moniker for a subjective moral judgement.

ParkCungHee believes b) Sin is omnipresent and thus instantaneous. *
A Sin committed on Earth is a Sin everywhere in the universe instantly, regardless of knowledge of the Sin. He also mocks Warpus for believing that Sin is only a Sin if someone knows about it, completely ignoring that Warpus has a completely different understanding of what Sin is.

In short, Warpus thinks "sin" while ParkCungHee thinks "Sin".

Sin-Drive vs Sinportation. *

-------
* See addendum in original post.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I think the speed of sin isnt really that much since after thousands of years it is still around. So the speed of sin is probably 0,00something but its effect is apparently gargantuan and instant that it puts the Dude who created universe to shame since for that he needed at least 6 days....

 

[Gori the Grey]

I think the speed of sin isnt really that much since after thousands of years it is still around. So the speed of sin is probably 0,00something but its effect is apparently gargantuan and instant that it puts the Dude who created universe to shame since for that he needed at least 6 days....

In Paradise Lost, Milton has Satan gloat that he'll wreck Creation in one day, when it took God six to build it! In this calculus, it doesn't occur to Satan that wrecking things is easier than building things.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

In Paradise Lost, Milton has Satan gloat that he'll wreck Creation in one day, when it took God six to build it! In this calculus, it doesn't occur to Satan that wrecking things is easier than building things.

Well wrecking things is hardly an instant thing besides the building process still continues...

That said I really like the saying: An idiots hour destroyes what centuries made.

 

[El_Machinae]

It is an interesting question. Does the Sin exist before the observer can exist? It's philosophically interesting. It's akin to the question 'do we discover math, or invent math'? And that's akin "do we discover Superman's next movie plot or invent it? Like math, the story of Superman was built up using original, man-invented, axioms. The rest of the story/equations flow naturally from that. This statement is more obvious from the Superman example than from the maths example, but the analogy is stronger than people realize on first pass.

If we discover math, then the math already exists. There's no universe-wide change than happens when a hairless ape announces 2+2=4. The initial premise, that '2' is composed of two identical 'ones' is already an axiom announced out of primate (Terran) heuristics. Those heuristics aside, 2+2 equaled four billions of years before Sol ignited.

 

[illram]

It is an interesting question. Does the Sin exist before the observer can exist? It's philosophically interesting. It's akin to the question 'do we discover math, or invent math'? And that's akin "do we discover Superman's next movie plot or invent it? Like math, the story of Superman was built up using original, man-invented, axioms. The rest of the story/equations flow naturally from that. This statement is more obvious from the Superman example than from the maths example, but the analogy is stronger than people realize on first pass.

If we discover math, then the math already exists. There's no universe-wide change than happens when a hairless ape announces 2+2=4. The initial premise, that '2' is composed of two identical 'ones' is already an axiom announced out of primate (Terran) heuristics. Those heuristics aside, 2+2 equaled four billions of years before Sol ignited.

I like the way you put it earlier; that it feels intuitively true that a fact exists independent of its observer. I feel that way with math on a basic level, with the qualifier that it is only interesting (to me) to consider how other non-human minds might perceive it. (As opposed to, "if there was no intelligent life anywhere would math exi"-zzzzzzzz and I'm asleep.)

If multiple things exist, which they do, I feel like any intelligent mind (or even what we would consider an animal mind) would have a way to quantify them, and some sort of quantification would be needed for survival (at least, at first). There are one or two suns, there are three moons, there are four nuts for me to eat, etc.

My only personal caution is that perhaps my human brain lacks creativity to think of the universe in any other way. I am "informed" a lot by good science fiction that I read which comes up with interesting foundations for alternative counting mechanisms based on alien physiology and solar system arrangements. E.g. how having an alternative number of fingers/digits, or a never ending day on a tidally locked planet affects a numerical system, and so on. But absent those sort of creative alternatives, the "rules" are the same, e.g. 2+2=4, everywhere. Without being much of a math whiz I do not know how an alternative counting system would affect math, so I just assume that the foundational rules remain. Absent some sort of fundamental shift in the laws of physics in different zones of the universe (e.g. Vernor Vinge's "Fire Upon the Deep") it would seem that the basic principles that humans have translated via our numerical system remain constant everywhere.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, I have no doubt that evolved beings would develop math. It's just too easy, too convenient. BUT, maths require certain axioms that aren't wholly true, but they just seem true enough. And, to a limited (evolved) mind, those simple axioms would more than likely feel so intuitive as to be obvious.

But, consider, 1+1 = 2. This requires that both ones are identical things. This idea exists in our head, and tons of math come out of this idea (naturally). BUT, the idea that there are two identical anythings is a leap. In the real world, we just fuzz away differences and say things that are similar are in the same category. If you call a Beagle and St. Bernard both 'dogs', then you can easily have two dogs. But that first step? Saying that a beagle and St. Bernard are the same (or same enough)? That's a heuristic leap, an intuitive one for sure. But it's still a leap. It's an axiom we've created. On this path, it's not wildly different from saying "imagine an alien who look like a man, but can fly and is a nice dude ... what happens next?"

 

[classical_hero]

This thread is so much fun to read.

 

[illram]

Oh, I have no doubt that evolved beings would develop math. It's just too easy, too convenient. BUT, maths require certain axioms that aren't wholly true, but they just seem true enough. And, to a limited (evolved) mind, those simple axioms would more than likely feel so intuitive as to be obvious.

But, consider, 1+1 = 2. This requires that both ones are identical things. This idea exists in our head, and tons of math come out of this idea (naturally). BUT, the idea that there are two identical anythings is a leap. In the real world, we just fuzz away differences and say things that are similar are in the same category. If you call a Beagle and St. Bernard both 'dogs', then you can easily have two dogs. But that first step? Saying that a beagle and St. Bernard are the same (or same enough)? That's a heuristic leap, an intuitive one for sure. But it's still a leap. It's an axiom we've created. On this path, it's not wildly different from saying "imagine an alien who look like a man, but can fly and is a nice dude ... what happens next?"

Well, if we can speculate: I feel like abstraction would develop on some level if the intelligence became anything resembling what a human mind would consider "intelligent." But again, this is perhaps displaying the limits of my own creativity.

I just don't see how some form of abstraction for the purposes of counting could not develop. Math is not just counting, but comparing and measuring. It is perception, in a way. That animal is bigger than that one; that flock is smaller than that one, I saw three lions over there, etc. It would seem to me to be necessary even for rudimentary survival. A wide variety of animals--from ants to angelfish to dolphins to salamanders--show this ability. And if an intelligent life form wanted to, say, develop space flight, or had seasons that it needed to accurately calculate for growing crops, or what have you, it would have to have some sort of abstract numerical system even if it maintained a lack of abstraction in other respects, e.g. refusing to call a doberman and a golden retriever "two dogs."

 

[Farm Boy]

Abstraction results from attempting to extend comprehension beyond sensory understanding, doesn't it? As something's understanding of its area of observation becomes more complete abstraction becomes more unnecessary.