Is Technocracy compatible with our faith?

[Heavens Declare]

I do not know who is antidote to technate America. But whoever undermines technocracy is useful at this point.

Perhaps Santorum! Just sayin'.

“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

 

[Heavens Declare]

Because Einstein was often right.

Keep telling yourself that!

If quantum theory guys have taken Eistein seriously, then would find non-locality phenomena 4 decades earlier.

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

 

[MeganC]

If scientists would listen to Barry Setterfield... it would erase 100 years of confusion.

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).

 

[MemeFan]

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).

I love you so much. You can be such good girl.

 

[MemeFan]

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).

Did you try this?

 

[Transformator Reformator]

I hate articles that sit behind pay walls!

Pay walls? What does it mean? I was able to read the whole article. There were a lot of commercials in the way but I read it.

 

[Transformator Reformator]

I hate articles that sit behind pay walls!

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.

 

[Mojo]

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).

Whoa. You both lost me. I’ll let you both argue this one out.

 

[Heavens Declare]

I love you so much. You can be such good girl.

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.

 

[Heavens Declare]

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).

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.

 

[MemeFan]

Keep telling yourself that!


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

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.

 

[MemeFan]

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.

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.

 

[MemeFan]

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.

 

[Heavens Declare]

Local redshift is already explained by Doppler effect. And Doppler is known to affect all electromagnetic waves. Which light is.

That is a very lousy explanation, and it does not explain the quantized redshift.

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

You are so off, as usual!

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

Take your own advice and get serious!

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.

The speed of light is determined by the medium through which it passes, This is a well known scientific fact!

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.

OK, keep telling yourself that time changes with velocity, whatever that is supposed to mean. Satellite clocks like any other clock has drift and has to be recalibrated periodically. When you pass someone on the left and they turn around and pass you on the left, you may be orbiting them, but your average speed is pretty much the same.

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

Lousy conclusion!

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.

I haven't gotten a speeding ticket since 1997. They only pull you over if you have been clocked at 10 MPH over the limit, just to ensure they have enough cushion, in order to ensure they are not wasting time, should you decide to hire a lawyer to argue such a case. The speedometer clock is based on a crystal, and has nothing to do with the speed of light.

 

[Heavens Declare]

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.

I believe I already shared a video that explained the dual slit conundrum.

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.

Then explain how we have received transmissions from the planet Mars Rover in less time than it would take for the speed of light to travel that distance.

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

He rejected the notion of the Aether because of the Michealson Morely experiment, and reached erroneous conclusions as a result. The real genius of his day was Tesla, and Tesla rejected Einstein. End of Story.

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.

He was no genius. He was a buffoon who gained popularity and notoriety with his bogus theories! You just follow the masses!

 

[Heavens Declare]

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?

Known physics??? That is laughable! Plate Tectonics expects us to believe that the mantle is circulating! Give me a break!

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.

You have got to be kidding yourself if what you term serious physics is without issues. The Hydroplate Theory documents all of those issues that abound in the alternative theories. No theory is without issue. Even you will admit that!

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.

Yeah keep telling yourself that.

 

[Heavens Declare]

 

[MemeFan]

That is a very lousy explanation, and it does not explain the quantized redshift.

Everything in known physics eventually becomes quantized.

The speed of light is determined by the medium through which it passes, This is a well known scientific fact!

Change of topic and irrelevant.

Here is my usual working method. Somebody claims A. OK, let's assume it's true. Then is followby implication, that B is true B too. Smae method for C.

So A causes B which C which means if C don't happen then A didn't happen too.

My argument is following:
A: change of speed of light
B: change of all EM waves
C: EM waves used in various products which must be reliable for long term and small issues in "wrong physics" causes problems (satellites as example)
D: This must be well known problem since many enginners would same "systematic error"
E: Problem must be discussed in various engineering handbooks plus science writing

Since E didn't happen, A doesn't exist. So light speed is constant.

See, medium doesn't matter. That's well know effect and already calculated into design.

Following link is interesting (first question):

Distant starlight and the days of Genesis 1

How should we approach the distant starlight travel time issue? How do we argue against day-age theory?

creation.com

Smart guys at CMI don't advocate change of speed of light, so they don't have issues.

Annddddddd, um anthropic principle (from same first question)

So speed of light is constant and small change of constant means no possible life in it's current form. So by implication, was anybody alive in AD 1245?

I love this so much. When one creationist crashes theorizing of another creationist. Maybe next time I should just qoute another creationist.

OK, keep telling yourself that time changes with velocity, whatever that is supposed to mean. Satellite clocks like any other clock has drift and has to be recalibrated periodically. When you pass someone on the left and they turn around and pass you on the left, you may be orbiting them, but your average speed is pretty much the same.

Observed time changes with velocity. I think.

I haven't gotten a speeding ticket since 1997. They only pull you over if you have been clocked at 10 MPH over the limit, just to ensure they have enough cushion, in order to ensure they are not wasting time, should you decide to hire a lawyer to argue such a case. The speedometer clock is based on a crystal, and has nothing to do with the speed of light.

Must be language. I mean police radar.

In Croatian, "mjeritelj brzine" (eng. speedometer) can mean both instrument in your car telling you speed and radar used by police to measure your speed.

Point stand. Thanks to shift in speed of EM wave, older police radar would become less reliable.

Then explain how we have received transmissions from the planet Mars Rover in less time than it would take for the speed of light to travel that distance.

Ooohhh, extraordinary claim.

What is evidence?

He rejected the notion of the Aether because of the Michealson Morely experiment, and reached erroneous conclusions as a result. The real genius of his day was Tesla, and Tesla rejected Einstein. End of Story.

He was no genius. He was a buffoon who gained popularity and notoriety with his bogus theories! You just follow the masses!

So buffon who predicted black holes in dummy because of ....personal opinion of Tesla.

Man, if this continues Tesla will lose all goodwill in my heart.

You have got to be kidding yourself if what you term serious physics is without issues. The Hydroplate Theory documents all of those issues that abound in the alternative theories. No theory is without issue. Even you will admit that!

If no theory is without issues, ummmm, that includes Hydroplate theory too.

Would you be so kind to list Hydroplate theory issues?

Yeah keep telling yourself that.

If you invent new general physics theory and theory itself can't predict already known physics effects, then that theory must be false because experiments which shown existence of effects are evidence against theory.

So if you try to invent new theory of gravity and you can't get black holes from theory, then all existence of all known black holes tell you you invented nonsense.

Even better if theory fails to get correct shape of Milky way or Solar system.

 

[Heavens Declare]

Everything in known physics eventually becomes quantized.



Change of topic and irrelevant.

Here is my usual working method. Somebody claims A. OK, let's assume it's true. Then is followby implication, that B is true B too. Smae method for C.

So A causes B which C which means if C don't happen then A didn't happen too.

My argument is following:
A: change of speed of light
B: change of all EM waves
C: EM waves used in various products which must be reliable for long term and small issues in "wrong physics" causes problems (satellites as example)
D: This must be well known problem since many enginners would same "systematic error"
E: Problem must be discussed in various engineering handbooks plus science writing

Since E didn't happen, A doesn't exist. So light speed is constant.

I disagree with your assertion that E did not happen.

See, medium doesn't matter. That's well know effect and already calculated into design.

Following link is interesting (first question):

Distant starlight and the days of Genesis 1

How should we approach the distant starlight travel time issue? How do we argue against day-age theory?

creation.com

Smart guys at CMI don't advocate change of speed of light, so they don't have issues.

Annddddddd, um anthropic principle (from same first question)

So speed of light is constant and small change of constant means no possible life in it's current form. So by implication, was anybody alive in AD 1245?

I love this so much. When one creationist crashes theorizing of another creationist. Maybe next time I should just qoute another creationist.



Observed time changes with velocity. I think.



Must be language. I mean police radar.

In Croatian, "mjeritelj brzine" (eng. speedometer) can mean both instrument in your car telling you speed and radar used by police to measure your speed.

Point stand. Thanks to shift in speed of EM wave, older police radar would become less reliable.



Ooohhh, extraordinary claim.

What is evidence?





So buffon who predicted black holes in dummy because of ....personal opinion of Tesla.

Man, if this continues Tesla will lose all goodwill in my heart.



If no theory is without issues, ummmm, that includes Hydroplate theory too.

Would you be so kind to list Hydroplate theory issues?



If you invent new general physics theory and theory itself can't predict already known physics effects, then that theory must be false because experiments which shown existence of effects are evidence against theory.

So if you try to invent new theory of gravity and you can't get black holes from theory, then all existence of all known black holes tell you you invented nonsense.

Even better if theory fails to get correct shape of Milky way or Solar system.

OK, I am working through that CMI article and I came across this response from CMI:

What matters for Dr Humphreys’ cosmology (and others like it) is that only one day passed on earth while billions of years’ worth of physical processes occurred on the outer reaches of the universe. In a relativistic sense we could say that the universe is both 6000 years old (as measured on Earth) and billions of years old (as measured at the edge of the universe). However, the Bible counts time from an earth-bound reference frame, so it speaks of the universe being about 6,000 years old.

That is an interesting way to look at it, and if you examine The C-Decay a bit more, you will find that Setterfield argues that it is not the Time itself that runs faster, but rather the clock that is being used to measure time. So in essence they may be saying the same thing, but CMI is using a looser definition of time. I did an cursory examination of Dr. Humphrey's theory, and at the time he envisioned a universe that is shaped like a torus. That was when I dismissed it and returned to Setterfield to see how he responded to objections. So it seems, if you discard the torus shaped universe explanation, and simply redefine time to be what is measured by atomic clocks, I don't really see much difference between what Dr Humphreys may now be claiming vs. what Setterfield has been saying all along. I add in Dr. Pete Moore as well, because his theory does seem to fill in the gaps of time and distance that the C-Decay leaves deficient.