a common atheist fallacy

[cuchulain]

22 minutes ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Huh?!? AFAIK Evanson et al measured the speed of light in 1973 using lasers...

 

Twentieth Century Physics, Volume 2, IOP publishing / AIP press.

welcome to the insanity.

[Key]

9 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Huh?!? AFAIK Evanson et al measured the speed of light in 1973 using lasers...

 

Twentieth Century Physics, Volume 2, IOP publishing / AIP press.

Uh, yeah, I don't get that. Aren't lasers, themselves, beams of light? How do you measure the speed of light with another light?

[Seeker]

Speed is distance divided by time. They measured the distance, and they measured the time.

 

[RevBogovac]

10 hours ago, Key said:

Uh, yeah, I don't get that. Aren't lasers, themselves, beams of light? How do you measure the speed of light with another light?

 

8 hours ago, Seeker said:

Speed is distance divided by time. They measured the distance, and they measured the time.

 

 

This would be the diagram to set it up:

 

 

Set up would look something like this:

 

 

Not overly complicated. So; yes, we can measure the speed of light...

 

The only thing left for discussion is the precision of the measurements (how long is a metre, how long does a second take et cetera).

 

But it seems a bit silly to me to compare the results of empiric studies with subjective beliefs...

 

 

 

 

Edited June 12, 2018 by RevBogovac

[Seeker]

The alignment of the beam splitter appears incorrect to me, but we really have strayed well off topic.

 

[cuchulain]

evidence, measurements, objective vs subjective...definitions and whether they should be used or if they are too subjective...it amazes me how anyone can discuss anything and actually get anywhere, with some individuals.  oh, wait.  i suppose we DON'T get anywhere with them, other than the perpetual argument.

 

objective evidence for god? no?  then it isn't shocking that i believe in the speed of light as defined, but not god as defined.

[mererdog]

On 6/11/2018 at 8:03 AM, RevBogovac said:

Huh?!? AFAIK Evanson et al measured the speed of light in 1973 using lasers....

You grok the difference between measuring the speed of a horse and measuring the speed of horse?

You see the important difference between measuring sensor input and measuring sensor output?

I forget. How many white swans do we have to record to prove that all swans are white?

A lot of fundamental cosmological conundrums make more sense if c varies. But scientific heresy makes you no friends...

Edited June 12, 2018 by mererdog

[mererdog]

6 hours ago, cuchulain said:

objective evidence for god? no?  then it isn't shocking that i believe in the speed of light as defined, but not god as defined.

What objective evidence of the speed of light have you personally seen? You did the laser experiment? Calibrated the electronics? Or are you trusting what you read in a book?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

29 minutes ago, mererdog said:

What objective evidence of the speed of light have you personally seen? You did the laser experiment? Calibrated the electronics? Or are you trusting what you read in a book?

 

I don't understand where you are going with this.  Are you suggesting that every measurement in physics, has to be independently confirmed, by everybody?  You seem to be pushing for impossible standards.  Why?  

[RevBogovac]

8 hours ago, mererdog said:

You grok the difference between measuring the speed of a horse and measuring the speed of horse?

You see the important difference between measuring sensor input and measuring sensor output?

I forget. How many white swans do we have to record to prove that all swans are white?

A lot of fundamental cosmological conundrums make more sense if c varies. But scientific heresy makes you no friends...

 

You are comparing apples and oranges (or physical instances [horses, swans et cetera] with physical phenomenons [the speed of light in a vacuum, the freezing point of H2O et cetera] if you wish).  And I suspect you are doing it on purpose to cloud this discussion. Too bad. 

[RevBogovac]

8 hours ago, mererdog said:

What objective evidence of the speed of light have you personally seen? You did the laser experiment? Calibrated the electronics? Or are you trusting what you read in a book?

 

7 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

I don't understand where you are going with this.  Are you suggesting that every measurement in physics, has to be independently confirmed, by everybody?  You seem to be pushing for impossible standards.  Why?  

 

This is really a bit below par. The measurements in physics are clearly described and reproducible. If I wish I can actually do the measurements myself, but I choose not to because I trust the system of scientific publication after peer-review (up to a certain point). 

 

What measurements are you (mererdog) suggesting we do of God?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

 

This is really a bit below par. The measurements in physics are clearly described and reproducible. If I wish I can actually do the measurements myself, but I choose not to because I trust the system of scientific publication after peer-review (up to a certain point). 

 

What measurements are you (mererdog) suggesting we do of God?

 

If we knew nothing at all about the physics of light -- we would still have objective, verifiable evidence that light exists.  Unlike God's existence.  The rest is detail.

 

Further.  If all books about Light and God were destroyed or otherwise lost  --  we could rediscover the details about Light.  How would we reclaim the information about God?  Aside from the output of imagination.  People would still claim Revelation.  Much like Joseph Smith or Sun Myung Moon  -- Or a few would be leaders, who found their way to this board.  

 

 

Further, the existence of light actually matters.  It does make a difference whether or not light exists.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 13, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

12 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

I don't understand where you are going with this.  Are you suggesting that every measurement in physics, has to be independently confirmed, by everybody?  You seem to be pushing for impossible standards.  Why?  

obstinancey, mind games, word play, egotism in his 'corrections' of OUR thought processes...a long list of things he gains emotionally from pushing buttons deliberately i think.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

13 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

obstinancey, mind games, word play, egotism in his 'corrections' of OUR thought processes...a long list of things he gains emotionally from pushing buttons deliberately i think.

 

I suspect that meredog has impossible standards of intellectual purity.  No malice.  Just impossible standards.  I think when he pushes our buttons -- it's incidental to making a point, instead of being an objective.  I know.  It's annoying.  I don't sense bad intentions.  

 

 

 

Edited June 13, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

15 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Are you suggesting that every measurement in physics, has to be independently confirmed, by everybody?  

No. I am stating that they cannot be.

 

We take a lot on trust, reflexively, without realizing we are doing it.

We use correlation to tease out an understanding of causation, despite the inherent logical problems.

We latch on tightly to preconceptions and summarily dismiss what does not fit. 

We count white swans and assume it tells us something about black swans.

 

And it works. It produces results. Except when it doesn't.

But we rarely count misses, because we are too busy counting hits.

Edited June 13, 2018 by mererdog

[Dan56]

6 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

If we knew nothing at all about the physics of light -- we would still have objective, verifiable evidence that light exists.  Unlike God's existence. 

 

" God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5)..  I reckon that pretty much puts a common atheist fallacy to bed 😊

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

47 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

" God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5)..  I reckon that pretty much puts a common atheist fallacy to bed 😊

 

 

You reckon wrong.

 

E = MC2

 

 

There is a difference between poetry and physics.  Even Bible poetry.  At most you have a metaphor.  This is not proof of anything.  

 

 

Common Atheist fallacy?

 

 

 

Edited June 13, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, mererdog said:

No. I am stating that they cannot be.

 

We take a lot on trust, reflexively, without realizing we are doing it.

We use correlation to tease out an understanding of causation, despite the inherent logical problems.

We latch on tightly to preconceptions and summarily dismiss what does not fit. 

We count white swans and assume it tells us something about black swans.

 

And it works. It produces results. Except when it doesn't.

But we rarely count misses, because we are too busy counting hits.

 

 

Your reasoning eludes me.  Real scientists want to find black swans.  Show a real scientist that his math is wrong -- he'll get excited by the implications for new understanding.

 

Of course, we take a lot on trust.  Real science is self correcting.  Findings are always tentative.  Pending confirmation and further development.

 

I'm not being mean.  I'm confused.  What is your point?  

[RevBogovac]

And again;

 

23 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

[...] What measurements are you (mererdog) suggesting we do of God?

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

And again;

 

 

 

 

It's an amusing question.  Usually, we only measure things that exist.  When we have no objective, verifiable facts about God -- no facts at all -- what is it that we would measure?

 

Even empty space -- literally nothing -- has greater than zero mass.

 

Aside from theology and philosophy, what do we know about God?  Less than nothing.