Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Comments (Page 7,735)

Showing posts 154,681 - 154,700 of223,220
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160901
Mar 17, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure about those, so I'll take your word for it and concede.
I was also wrong when I wrote "c is not constant". What I meant to write is "the speed of light is not constant".
Was that so difficult?

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160902
Mar 17, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Generally speaking, refractive index increases with frequency, so the speed will decrease with frequency: blue light is slower in water than red.
That said, it is possible to have the reverse effect near absorption lines in the spectrum. Because of a resonance phenomenon, the index of refraction can decrease with frequency in that situation. This is called anomalous dispersion.
It is also possible for the *phase* velocity to be greater than the speed of light in a vacuum. This happens in some cases of anomalous dispersion. It actually also happens with matter waves in QM. The *signal* velocity will be below the speed of light, though.
The wikipedia article on phase velocities has a nice animation that might help understanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_velocity
Thank you.

Processing.
Thinking

Leeds, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160903
Mar 17, 2013
 
I already covered that I know this is the modern defn.

To the nearest doesn't exclude the case that is exact, btw.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, actually. That is exact because it is the current *definition* of the meter.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160904
Mar 17, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never been to a creation institute school.
I know that all science isn't right...
The speed of light is not constant, science is right about that.
Well you seem to be amongst the creotard crowd when you make such a blatantly wrong statement such as that.
Especially since is was reaffirmed very recently , that it actually hold true to the mark. Being a universal constant and standard and all. Those guys at NIST all seem to think it is too , by all weights and measure. But you're seemingly convinced , so I'm thinking you must have some pretty strong evidence, I mean other than a feeling all by your oneseys that all the geniuses of the world are so wrong.
So don't be shy present your evidence that the clocks that are accurate to 1 second in 3 billion years are wrong and you are right.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160906
Mar 17, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ugh....
You people can be very obtuse.
This has turned in to a three day conversation...
The point is simple; the speed of light varies.

The speed limit is posted on the highway , but the cars move at different rates. The only difference is light can't exceed the limit.
But the limit is posted and never changes.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160907
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
Monochromatic light (light of a given frequency) has a constant speed, through water... right?
Even that isn't quite correct. There is a variation in speed due to density, specifically the electron density. That would be affected by temperature and pressure, for example. Generally speaking, a higher density gives a higher index of refraction and so a smaller phase velocity.

So, for 'ordinary' materials, the index of refraction depends on the frequency, the electron density of the material, and the location of absorption lines in the spectrum of the material.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160908
Mar 17, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but the speed of light *in a vacuum* does not. By convention, unless otherwise stated, the speed of light *means* the speed of light in a vacuum.
It is the speed of light in a vacuum that is c. So c is a constant. It is even an exact constant: 299,792,458 meters per second. This is contrary to your previous claims (post 160521).
Furthermore, the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers. So, if you were moving at half the speed of light past me and I turned on a flashlight, you would see the beam from that flashlight catch up to you with a speed of c (assuming all is in a vacuum).
I'll say it again, differently than how I said it before...

RR is more concerned winning an argument than he is with understanding the argument.

Your patience seems virtually limitless!

How do ya manage that?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160909
Mar 17, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but the speed of light *in a vacuum* does not. By convention, unless otherwise stated, the speed of light *means* the speed of light in a vacuum.
It is the speed of light in a vacuum that is c. So c is a constant. It is even an exact constant: 299,792,458 meters per second. This is contrary to your previous claims (post 160521).
Furthermore, the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers. So, if you were moving at half the speed of light past me and I turned on a flashlight, you would see the beam from that flashlight catch up to you with a speed of c (assuming all is in a vacuum).
I know...

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160910
Mar 17, 2013
 
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm an atheist and an agnostic.
You're a theist and an agnostic.
What's your point.
You can label you.

You can't label me.

What's your point?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160911
Mar 17, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you. Nobody claimed otherwise.
Talk to Hukt. He's now bitching at me on two threads that the speed of light is constant....

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160912
Mar 17, 2013
 
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
Was that so difficult?
Nope.

Your turn.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160913
Mar 17, 2013
 
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
RR is more concerned winning an argument than he is with understanding the argument.
Kettle, meet pot.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160914
Mar 17, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Well you seem to be amongst the creotard crowd when you make such a blatantly wrong statement such as that.
Especially since is was reaffirmed very recently , that it actually hold true to the mark. Being a universal constant and standard and all. Those guys at NIST all seem to think it is too , by all weights and measure. But you're seemingly convinced , so I'm thinking you must have some pretty strong evidence, I mean other than a feeling all by your oneseys that all the geniuses of the world are so wrong.
So don't be shy present your evidence that the clocks that are accurate to 1 second in 3 billion years are wrong and you are right.
To what statement are you referring?

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160915
Mar 17, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even that isn't quite correct. There is a variation in speed due to density, specifically the electron density. That would be affected by temperature and pressure, for example. Generally speaking, a higher density gives a higher index of refraction and so a smaller phase velocity.
So, for 'ordinary' materials, the index of refraction depends on the frequency, the electron density of the material, and the location of absorption lines in the spectrum of the material.
He he.

Yes sir... that much I do understand (still working on phase velocity/group velocity).

We don't live in a perfect world and everything's in a state of change, so to speak. Conditions "here" aren't the same as "over there".

If the statement/question is rephrased, so that the material is of uniform density, temperature, and pressure (the three are related; a change in one requires a change in the others)... and consistent throughout... THEN would light's speed be constant through the material?

I think... yes?

I'm fairly comfortable with what happens when light transitions from one material to another, as at a water-air interface.

I work with optical fiber... and a particular piece of equipment called an OTDR (optical time domain reflectometer).

With regard to the machine, I'm an "end user"... but, one that tends to get lost in the intricacies of what's actually going on... more so than other techs.

Thanks for putting up with me.

It's appreciated.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160916
Mar 17, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You can label you.
You can't label me.
What's your point?
You're a theist.

You're an agnostic.

That's my point.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160917
Mar 17, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
To what statement are you referring?
You know what you are whining about.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160918
Mar 17, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Talk to Hukt. He's now bitching at me on two threads that the speed of light is constant....
No...

You're whining on two threads.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160919
Mar 17, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
Your turn.
To do what?

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160920
Mar 17, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's awesome, but I have no idea what it means.
I gave up on math when they started putting letters in it :)
I was not ignoring you I was trying to find a way of explaining. I subsequently found this from Yale:-

http://videolectures.net/yalephys200f06_funda...

In particular:-

http://videolectures.net/yalephys200f06_shank...

I have not had time to watch them all but they seem to be pretty good. Hope it helps.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160921
Mar 17, 2013
 
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
He he.
Yes sir... that much I do understand (still working on phase velocity/group velocity).
We don't live in a perfect world and everything's in a state of change, so to speak. Conditions "here" aren't the same as "over there".
If the statement/question is rephrased, so that the material is of uniform density, temperature, and pressure (the three are related; a change in one requires a change in the others)... and consistent throughout... THEN would light's speed be constant through the material?
I think... yes?
I'm fairly comfortable with what happens when light transitions from one material to another, as at a water-air interface.
I work with optical fiber... and a particular piece of equipment called an OTDR (optical time domain reflectometer).
With regard to the machine, I'm an "end user"... but, one that tends to get lost in the intricacies of what's actually going on... more so than other techs.
Thanks for putting up with me.
It's appreciated.
I understand that processors are moving into a laser light carried code, and it is nearly at c that it works in these machines.
That's the cool news , but the bad news is ...our computers are obsolete, gonna have build a pricy shiny new computer, and they gonna rake it in again.

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-05-17/tech/quant...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 154,681 - 154,700 of223,220
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••